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 2 courts 1947–2022 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Crocker v. Rileygreen2 sentences1947Thus, he urges that the consideration of whether or not the recipient charitable corporation is "organized ... under the laws of this State or of the United States" relates wholly to the former as distinguished from the latter type of testamentary disposition of property, so that the transfer in trust achieves a tax-exempt status only if limited to "use within this State." Were such concept of the proviso adopted, appellant's tax claim would prevail without further argument, for the testator's bequest of his residuary estate "for the benefit of British refugee children" has no correlating limi 1947Thus, he urges that the consideration of whether or not the recipient charitable corporation is "organized ... under the laws of this State or of the United States" relates wholly to the former as distinguished from the latter type of testamentary disposition of property, so that the transfer in trust achieves a tax-exempt status only if limited to "use within this State." Were such concept of the proviso adopted, appellant's tax claim would prevail without further argument, for the testator's bequest of his residuary estate "for the benefit of British refugee children" has no correlating limi | 2 | 2 |
San Diego Cnty. Health & Human Servs. Agency v. E.A. (In re E.A.)green1 sentence2022Further support for this distinction is the punctuation and transitional words separating the three options. “‘[W]hile not of controlling importance, punctuation is part of a statute and should be considered in its interpretation . . . .’ [Citation.] Punctuation by a semicolon ‘is indicative of a complete thought in one clause separate from the other clauses of the statute.’ [Citation.] Additionally, the plain and ordinary meaning of the word ‘or,’ when used in a statute, is to designate separate, disjunctive categories. [Citation.] The word ‘or’ suggests alternatives. [Citation.] In its ordin | 1 | 1 |
Moncharsh v. Heily & Blasegreen2 sentences2005Although Lionsgate raised the standard of review mandated by Public Contract Code section 10240.12 in its petition to vacate, the trial court applied the usual restricted standard of review required by Code of Civil Procedure section 1286.2 and Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1, 27-28 [ 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 183 , 832 P.2d 899 ]. 2005Although Lionsgate raised the standard of review mandated by Public Contract Code section 10240.12 in its petition to vacate, the trial court applied the usual restricted standard of review required by Code of Civil Procedure section 1286.2 and Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1, 27-28 [ 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 183 , 832 P.2d 899 ]. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Lopez
green
1 sentence2022(Lopez, supra, 198 Cal.App.4th at p. 713 .) This court restricted its analysis to the first degree burglary count and found that the prior acts evidence lacked “substantial probative value that outweighed its inherent prejudice” as to that count. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
In Re CH
red
1 sentence2022Further support for this distinction is the punctuation and transitional words separating the three options. “‘[W]hile not of controlling importance, punctuation is part of a statute and should be considered in its interpretation . . . .’ [Citation.] Punctuation by a semicolon ‘is indicative of a complete thought in one clause separate from the other clauses of the statute.’ [Citation.] Additionally, the plain and ordinary meaning of the word ‘or,’ when used in a statute, is to designate separate, disjunctive categories. [Citation.] The word ‘or’ suggests alternatives. [Citation.] In its ordin | 1 | 2022–2022 |
In Re MacKay Ex Rel. Parker
green
1 sentence1990Indeed Parker cites Wong Sam without question or discussion. ( 57 Cal.App.2d at p. 391 .) | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Dr. Harold D. Kletschka v. William J. Driver, Individually and as Administrator of the Veterans Administration
green
2 sentences1978We weigh his arguments propounding liability against the local rule of immunity (Kletschka v. Driver, supra, 411 F.2d 436, 448 ). 1978We weigh his arguments propounding liability against the local rule of immunity (Kletschka v. Driver, supra, 411 F.2d 436, 448 ). | 1 | 1978–1978 |
McAllen v. Souza
green
1 sentence1952Moreover, findings or conclusions made at the time of the entry of an interlocutory judgment are “subject to change or modification at the time of the entry of the final judgment” and “An interlocutory decree, in a ease such as this [accounting], ‘is not to be construed as a final determination of the rights of the parties with respect to any of the matters embraced therein [citations].’ ” (McAllen v. Souza, 24 Cal.App.2d 247, 250-251 , supra.) There was no consent or waiver in this case.; appellant’s counsel repeatedly insisted on the right to a retrial of the case in its entirety, while the | 1 | 1952–1952 |
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.