Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 California opinions name it 1 courts 1962–2026 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Howard S. Wright Construction Co. v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2026(Ibid. [in such a motion, the issue is “the probable validity of the lien”]; Howard S. Wright Construction Co. v. Superior Court (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 314, 318 [“[T]he grant of a [Lambert] motion to remove a mechanic’s lien is essentially a judgment on the underlying foreclosure action that no lien exists.”].) B. 2021(Lambert, supra, 228 Cal.App.3d at p. 387 [adopting probable validity standard]; Cal Sierra, supra, 206 Cal.App.4th at p. 850 [same]; accord, Connolly, supra, 17 Cal.3d at p. 822 [noting mechanisms for “obtain[ing] a speedy hearing on the probable validity of the lien”]; Basic Modular, supra, 70 Cal.App.4th at p. 1485 [“[t]he lien claimant has the burden of establishing the validity of the lien”]; Howard S. Wright Construction, supra, 106 Cal.App.4th at p. 319 [same].) This standard requires the contractor to prove a ‘“prima facie case”’ by establishing the ‘“probable outcome of the litigation | 2 | 2 |
Lambert v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2026(Lambert, supra, 228 Cal.App.3d at p. 387 .) In this context, to obtain speedy relief a property owner may bring what is known as a Lambert motion to remove a mechanic’s lien instead of waiting for trial on the action to foreclose the lien. 2024(Lambert v. Superior Court (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 383, 387 .) In support of its opposition to the Lambert motion, Gold Star’s owner declared that SPES “[o]riginally” stated there would be no lender. | 1 | 3 |
RGC Gaslamp v. Ehmcke Sheet Metal Co.green1 sentence2021(E.g., RGC Gaslamp, supra, 56 Cal.App.5th at p. 423, fn. 8; cf. Cal Sierra, supra, 206 Cal.App.4th at p. 846 [lenders may not file a Lambert motion].) III. | 1 | 1 |
Basic Modular Facilities, Inc. v. Ehsanipourgreen1 sentence2021(Lambert, supra, 228 Cal.App.3d at p. 387 [adopting probable validity standard]; Cal Sierra, supra, 206 Cal.App.4th at p. 850 [same]; accord, Connolly, supra, 17 Cal.3d at p. 822 [noting mechanisms for “obtain[ing] a speedy hearing on the probable validity of the lien”]; Basic Modular, supra, 70 Cal.App.4th at p. 1485 [“[t]he lien claimant has the burden of establishing the validity of the lien”]; Howard S. Wright Construction, supra, 106 Cal.App.4th at p. 319 [same].) This standard requires the contractor to prove a ‘“prima facie case”’ by establishing the ‘“probable outcome of the litigation | 1 | 1 |
Connolly Development, Inc. v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2021(Lambert, supra, 228 Cal.App.3d at p. 387 [adopting probable validity standard]; Cal Sierra, supra, 206 Cal.App.4th at p. 850 [same]; accord, Connolly, supra, 17 Cal.3d at p. 822 [noting mechanisms for “obtain[ing] a speedy hearing on the probable validity of the lien”]; Basic Modular, supra, 70 Cal.App.4th at p. 1485 [“[t]he lien claimant has the burden of establishing the validity of the lien”]; Howard S. Wright Construction, supra, 106 Cal.App.4th at p. 319 [same].) This standard requires the contractor to prove a ‘“prima facie case”’ by establishing the ‘“probable outcome of the litigation 2021(Lambert, supra, 228 Cal.App.3d at p. 387 [adopting probable validity standard]; Cal Sierra, supra, 206 Cal.App.4th at p. 850 [same]; accord, Connolly, supra, 17 Cal.3d at p. 822 [noting mechanisms for “obtain[ing] a speedy hearing on the probable validity of the lien”]; Basic Modular, supra, 70 Cal.App.4th at p. 1485 [“[t]he lien claimant has the burden of establishing the validity of the lien”]; Howard S. Wright Construction, supra, 106 Cal.App.4th at p. 319 [same].) This standard requires the contractor to prove a ‘“prima facie case”’ by establishing the ‘“probable outcome of the litigation | 1 | 1 |
Cal Sierra Construction, Inc. v. Comerica Bankgreen2 sentences2021(Lambert, supra, 228 Cal.App.3d at p. 387 [adopting probable validity standard]; Cal Sierra, supra, 206 Cal.App.4th at p. 850 [same]; accord, Connolly, supra, 17 Cal.3d at p. 822 [noting mechanisms for “obtain[ing] a speedy hearing on the probable validity of the lien”]; Basic Modular, supra, 70 Cal.App.4th at p. 1485 [“[t]he lien claimant has the burden of establishing the validity of the lien”]; Howard S. Wright Construction, supra, 106 Cal.App.4th at p. 319 [same].) This standard requires the contractor to prove a ‘“prima facie case”’ by establishing the ‘“probable outcome of the litigation 2021(E.g., RGC Gaslamp, supra, 56 Cal.App.5th at p. 423, fn. 8; cf. Cal Sierra, supra, 206 Cal.App.4th at p. 846 [lenders may not file a Lambert motion].) III. | 1 | 1 |
Hoffman-Haag v. Transamerica Insurancegreen2 sentences2012Co. (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 10, 15 [ 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 805 ]; 9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (5th ed. 2008) Appeal, § 406, p. 464.) A legal argument may be raised for the first time in a new trial motion or on appeal “ ‘so long as the new theory presents a question of law to be applied to undisputed facts in the record.’ ” (Nippon Credit Bank v. 1333 North Cal. Boulevard (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 486, 500 [ 103 Cal.Rptr.2d 421 ].) The question whether the banks are entitled to pursue a Lambert motion under the circumstances presented here is one of law based on undisputed facts. 2012Co. (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 10, 15 [ 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 805 ]; 9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (5th ed. 2008) Appeal, § 406, p. 464.) A legal argument may be raised for the first time in a new trial motion or on appeal “ ‘so long as the new theory presents a question of law to be applied to undisputed facts in the record.’ ” (Nippon Credit Bank v. 1333 North Cal. Boulevard (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 486, 500 [ 103 Cal.Rptr.2d 421 ].) The question whether the banks are entitled to pursue a Lambert motion under the circumstances presented here is one of law based on undisputed facts. | 1 | 1 |
Nippon Credit Bank, Ltd. v. 1333 N. Cal. Boulevardgreen2 sentences2012Co. (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 10, 15 [ 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 805 ]; 9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (5th ed. 2008) Appeal, § 406, p. 464.) A legal argument may be raised for the first time in a new trial motion or on appeal “ ‘so long as the new theory presents a question of law to be applied to undisputed facts in the record.’ ” (Nippon Credit Bank v. 1333 North Cal. Boulevard (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 486, 500 [ 103 Cal.Rptr.2d 421 ].) The question whether the banks are entitled to pursue a Lambert motion under the circumstances presented here is one of law based on undisputed facts. 2012Co. (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 10, 15 [ 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 805 ]; 9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (5th ed. 2008) Appeal, § 406, p. 464.) A legal argument may be raised for the first time in a new trial motion or on appeal “ ‘so long as the new theory presents a question of law to be applied to undisputed facts in the record.’ ” (Nippon Credit Bank v. 1333 North Cal. Boulevard (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 486, 500 [ 103 Cal.Rptr.2d 421 ].) The question whether the banks are entitled to pursue a Lambert motion under the circumstances presented here is one of law based on undisputed facts. | 1 | 1 |
Adler v. Blairgreen2 sentences1962(Adler v. Blair, 169 Cal.App.2d 92, 96-97 [ 336 P.2d 971 ].) Amount of Damages Lambert contends that the Clayton Street property was not worth more than $27,000 and that, even though unauthorized, his act in reducing its valuation to that figure therefore did not result in any damage to the Earles. 1962(Adler v. Blair, 169 Cal.App.2d 92, 96-97 [ 336 P.2d 971 ].) Amount of Damages Lambert contends that the Clayton Street property was not worth more than $27,000 and that, even though unauthorized, his act in reducing its valuation to that figure therefore did not result in any damage to the Earles. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hampton v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences2014(Dalton I, supra, H029904; Hampton, supra, 38 Cal.2d at p. 654 .) To the extent appellants contend that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the June 13, 2008 order granting Lambert’s motion for indemnification, we reject the contention. 2014(Dalton I, supra, H029904; Hampton, supra, 38 Cal.2d at p. 654 .) To the extent appellants contend that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the June 13, 2008 order granting Lambert’s motion for indemnification, we reject the contention. | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Woodard v. Personnel Commission of the Compton Unified School District
green
2 sentences1980(See Woodard v. Personnel Commission, supra, 89 Cal. App.3d at p. 559 .) Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue directing the superior court to vacate its order of March 13, 1980, and enter a new order denying Lambert's motion for transcript. 1980(See Woodard v. Personnel Commission, supra, 89 Cal.App.3d at p. 559 .) Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue directing the superior court to vacate its order of March 13, 1980, and enter a new order denying Lambert’s motion for transcript. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.