8 California opinions name it 2 courts 1912–2021 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co.green2 sentences2014To the contrary, trial courts [are] urged to exercise pragmatism and flexibility in dealing with class actions.’ [Citations.]” (Wershba v. Apple Computer, Inc. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 224, 239-240 ; see Cartt v. Superior Court (1975) 50 Cal.App.3d 960, 970, fn. 16 [“[w]e note the obvious: Rule 23, as such, does not bind California courts”].) California courts follow the federal rules for class action only in the absence of controlling state authority and only “look to Rule 23 for guidance where California precedent is lacking.” (Los Angeles Gay & Lesbian Center v. Superior Court (2011) 194 Cal.A 2014To the contrary, trial courts [are] urged to exercise pragmatism and flexibility in dealing with class actions.’ [Citations.]” (Wershba v. Apple Computer, Inc. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 224, 239-240 ; see Cartt v. Superior Court (1975) 50 Cal.App.3d 960, 970, fn. 16 [“[w]e note the obvious: Rule 23, as such, does not bind California courts”].) California courts follow the federal rules for class action only in the absence of controlling state authority and only “look to Rule 23 for guidance where California precedent is lacking.” (Los Angeles Gay & Lesbian Center v. Superior Court (2011) 194 Cal.A | 2 | 2 |
La Sala v. American Savings & Loan Ass'ngreen2 sentences2014To the contrary, trial courts [are] urged to exercise pragmatism and flexibility in dealing with class actions.’ [Citations.]” (Wershba v. Apple Computer, Inc. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 224, 239-240 ; see Cartt v. Superior Court (1975) 50 Cal.App.3d 960, 970, fn. 16 [“[w]e note the obvious: Rule 23, as such, does not bind California courts”].) California courts follow the federal rules for class action only in the absence of controlling state authority and only “look to Rule 23 for guidance where California precedent is lacking.” (Los Angeles Gay & Lesbian Center v. Superior Court (2011) 194 Cal.A 2014To the contrary, trial courts [are] urged to exercise pragmatism and flexibility in dealing with class actions.’ [Citations.]” (Wershba v. Apple Computer, Inc. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 224, 239-240 ; see Cartt v. Superior Court (1975) 50 Cal.App.3d 960, 970, fn. 16 [“[w]e note the obvious: Rule 23, as such, does not bind California courts”].) California courts follow the federal rules for class action only in the absence of controlling state authority and only “look to Rule 23 for guidance where California precedent is lacking.” (Los Angeles Gay & Lesbian Center v. Superior Court (2011) 194 Cal.A | 2 | 2 |
Cartt v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2014To the contrary, trial courts [are] urged to exercise pragmatism and flexibility in dealing with class actions.’ [Citations.]” (Wershba v. Apple Computer, Inc. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 224, 239-240 ; see Cartt v. Superior Court (1975) 50 Cal.App.3d 960, 970, fn. 16 [“[w]e note the obvious: Rule 23, as such, does not bind California courts”].) California courts follow the federal rules for class action only in the absence of controlling state authority and only “look to Rule 23 for guidance where California precedent is lacking.” (Los Angeles Gay & Lesbian Center v. Superior Court (2011) 194 Cal.A 2014To the contrary, trial courts [are] urged to exercise pragmatism and flexibility in dealing with class actions.’ [Citations.]” (Wershba v. Apple Computer, Inc. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 224, 239-240 ; see Cartt v. Superior Court (1975) 50 Cal.App.3d 960, 970, fn. 16 [“[w]e note the obvious: Rule 23, as such, does not bind California courts”].) California courts follow the federal rules for class action only in the absence of controlling state authority and only “look to Rule 23 for guidance where California precedent is lacking.” (Los Angeles Gay & Lesbian Center v. Superior Court (2011) 194 Cal.A | 2 | 2 |
Center v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2014To the contrary, trial courts [are] urged to exercise pragmatism and flexibility in dealing with class actions.’ [Citations.]” (Wershba v. Apple Computer, Inc. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 224, 239-240 ; see Cartt v. Superior Court (1975) 50 Cal.App.3d 960, 970, fn. 16 [“[w]e note the obvious: Rule 23, as such, does not bind California courts”].) California courts follow the federal rules for class action only in the absence of controlling state authority and only “look to Rule 23 for guidance where California precedent is lacking.” (Los Angeles Gay & Lesbian Center v. Superior Court (2011) 194 Cal.A 2014To the contrary, trial courts [are] urged to exercise pragmatism and flexibility in dealing with class actions.’ [Citations.]” (Wershba v. Apple Computer, Inc. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 224, 239-240 ; see Cartt v. Superior Court (1975) 50 Cal.App.3d 960, 970, fn. 16 [“[w]e note the obvious: Rule 23, as such, does not bind California courts”].) California courts follow the federal rules for class action only in the absence of controlling state authority and only “look to Rule 23 for guidance where California precedent is lacking.” (Los Angeles Gay & Lesbian Center v. Superior Court (2011) 194 Cal.A | 2 | 2 |
Professional Engineers v. Department of Transportationgreen2 sentences2007Similarly, section 14130 expresses the Legislature's intent that Caltrans "contract for the services of engineers, [and] architects, ... whenever the department is inadequately staffed to satisfactorily carry out its program of project study reports, project development, surveying, and construction inspection in a timely and effective matter." (§ 14130, subd. (b); see also § 14131 ["Services contracted for shall not cause the displacement of any permanent, temporary, or part-time employee of the department"].) "These sections appear consistent with decisional law interpreting article VII." ( P 2007Similarly, section 14130 expresses the Legislature's intent that Caltrans "contract for the services of engineers, [and] architects, ... whenever the department is inadequately staffed to satisfactorily carry out its program of project study reports, project development, surveying, and construction inspection in a timely and effective matter." (§ 14130, subd. (b); see also § 14131 ["Services contracted for shall not cause the displacement of any permanent, temporary, or part-time employee of the department"].) "These sections appear consistent with decisional law interpreting article VII." ( P | 2 | 2 |
KATIE v. v. SUPERIOR COURTgreen1 sentence2021(Katie V. v. Superior Court (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 586, 598 (Katie V.).) It has long been recognized that, in most cases, more services could have been provided and the services provided are often imperfect. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Watsongreen2 sentences1984(See People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 837 [ 299 P.2d 243 ], cert, den., Watson v. Teets (1957) 355 U.S. 846 [ 2 L.Ed.2d 55 , 78 S.Ct. 70 ].) Evenhanded application would be rendered impossible through use of the Watson standard. 1984(See People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 837 [ 299 P.2d 243 ], cert, den., Watson v. Teets (1957) 355 U.S. 846 [ 2 L.Ed.2d 55 , 78 S.Ct. 70 ].) Evenhanded application would be rendered impossible through use of the Watson standard. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Wershba v. Apple Computer, Inc.
green
2 sentences2014To the contrary, trial courts [are] urged to exercise pragmatism and flexibility in dealing with class actions.’ [Citations.]” (Wershba v. Apple Computer, Inc. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 224, 239-240 ; see Cartt v. Superior Court (1975) 50 Cal.App.3d 960, 970, fn. 16 [“[w]e note the obvious: Rule 23, as such, does not bind California courts”].) California courts follow the federal rules for class action only in the absence of controlling state authority and only “look to Rule 23 for guidance where California precedent is lacking.” (Los Angeles Gay & Lesbian Center v. Superior Court (2011) 194 Cal.A 2014To the contrary, trial courts [are] urged to exercise pragmatism and flexibility in dealing with class actions.’ [Citations.]” (Wershba v. Apple Computer, Inc. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 224, 239-240 ; see Cartt v. Superior Court (1975) 50 Cal.App.3d 960, 970, fn. 16 [“[w]e note the obvious: Rule 23, as such, does not bind California courts”].) California courts follow the federal rules for class action only in the absence of controlling state authority and only “look to Rule 23 for guidance where California precedent is lacking.” (Los Angeles Gay & Lesbian Center v. Superior Court (2011) 194 Cal.A | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Taylor J. v. Janet W.
green
1 sentence2021The services requirement and the limits on reunification efforts Section 361.5 provides in relevant part that, whenever a minor is removed from the parent, the juvenile court is required to order family reunification services reasonably tailored to address the problems that led to the child’s removal. (§ 361.5, subd. (a); In re Taylor J. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1446, 1451 .) The child services agency must make a good faith effort to address the parent’s issues and to make reasonable efforts to assist a parent who is struggling with compliance. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Carreon
green
2 sentences1984The Carreon court acknowledged this difficulty and refused to adopt the Watson standard of reversibility, 7 noting that “[d]ue to the number and variety of other constitutional rights affected by the services of a defense interpreter,” the Watson test is “inappropriate, if not unworkable.” ( 151 Cal.App.3d at p. 575 .) The standard proposed by the Carreon court is not any more workable. 1984The Carreon court acknowledged this difficulty and refused to adopt the Watson standard of reversibility, [7] noting that "[d]ue to the number and variety of other constitutional rights affected by the services of a defense interpreter," the Watson test is "inappropriate, if not unworkable." ( 151 Cal. App.3d at p. 575 .) The standard proposed by the Carreon court is not any more workable. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Lingham-Pritchard v. Commissioner
green
1 sentence1984(See People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 837 [ 299 P.2d 243 ], cert, den., Watson v. Teets (1957) 355 U.S. 846 [ 2 L.Ed.2d 55 , 78 S.Ct. 70 ].) Evenhanded application would be rendered impossible through use of the Watson standard. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Gaylord v. Clemmer
green
2 sentences1984(See People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 837 [ 299 P.2d 243 ], cert, den., Watson v. Teets (1957) 355 U.S. 846 [ 2 L.Ed.2d 55 , 78 S.Ct. 70 ].) Evenhanded application would be rendered impossible through use of the Watson standard. 1984(See People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 837 [ 299 P.2d 243 ], cert, den., Watson v. Teets (1957) 355 U.S. 846 [ 2 L.Ed.2d 55 , 78 S.Ct. 70 ].) Evenhanded application would be rendered impossible through use of the Watson standard. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Bush v. Wood
green
1 sentence1912A. 597, 59 Pac. 577 ], the court said: “This rule must be applied to all the evidence submitted by the plaintiff.” In Bush v. Wood, 8 Cal. App. 650 , [ 97 Pac. 709 ], the rule is thus stated: “It is clear that it makes no difference, where *122 the motion for a nonsuit is made on the close of plaintiff’s case, whether the court itself believes the testimony or not, for, as is obvious, the material facts which the evidence tends to prove must be assumed to be true for the purpose of the motion, just the same as the material facts alleged in a pleading must be so treated in the consideration of | 1 | 1912–1912 |
Hanley v. California Bridge & Construction Co.
green
1 sentence1912A. 597, 59 Pac. 577 ], the court said: “This rule must be applied to all the evidence submitted by the plaintiff.” In Bush v. Wood, 8 Cal. App. 650 , [ 97 Pac. 709 ], the rule is thus stated: “It is clear that it makes no difference, where *122 the motion for a nonsuit is made on the close of plaintiff’s case, whether the court itself believes the testimony or not, for, as is obvious, the material facts which the evidence tends to prove must be assumed to be true for the purpose of the motion, just the same as the material facts alleged in a pleading must be so treated in the consideration of | 1 | 1912–1912 |
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.