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 3 courts 1942–2006 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Karry v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1977(Cf Karry v. Superior Court, 162 Cal. 281, 284 [ 122 Pac. 475 , 128 Pac. 760 ]; Estrin v. Superior Court, 14 Cal. (2d) 670, 674 [ 96 P. (2d) 340 ].)” (Italics in the original.) See also Armstrong v. Armstrong, supra, 15 Cal.3d at pages 950-951. 1977(Cf Karry v. Superior Court, 162 Cal. 281, 284 [ 122 Pac. 475 , 128 Pac. 760 ]; Estrin v. Superior Court, 14 Cal. (2d) 670, 674 [ 96 P. (2d) 340 ].)” (Italics in the original.) See also Armstrong v. Armstrong, supra, 15 Cal.3d at pages 950-951. | 3 | 3 |
Estrin v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1977(Cf Karry v. Superior Court, 162 Cal. 281, 284 [ 122 Pac. 475 , 128 Pac. 760 ]; Estrin v. Superior Court, 14 Cal. (2d) 670, 674 [ 96 P. (2d) 340 ].)” (Italics in the original.) See also Armstrong v. Armstrong, supra, 15 Cal.3d at pages 950-951. 1947(Cf. Karry v. Superior Court, 162 Cal. 281, 284 [ 122 P. 475 , 128 P. 760 ]; Estrin v. Superior Court, 14 Cal.2d 670, 674 [ 96 P.2d 340 ].) ” Certainly, if a statutory requirement of this character is not jurisdictional, a requirement of notice of the pendency of the action, after it is filed, cannot be jurisdictional. | 2 | 3 |
County of Santa Clara v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2006Where, as here, the statute does not restrict the power of the court but merely sets up a condition precedent to the establishment of plaintiff’s cause of action, we think the violation of the statutory provision constitutes an error of law rather than excess of jurisdiction.’ [Citation.]” (County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court (1971) 4 Cal.3d 545, 549 [ 94 Cal.Rptr. 158 , 483 P.2d 774 ]; accord, In re Marriage of Goddard (2004) 33 Cal.4th 49, 57 [ 14 Cal.Rptr.3d 50 , 90 P.3d 1209 ] [quoting County of Santa Clara, at p. 549]; see Poster v. Southern Cal. Rapid Transit Dist. (1990) 52 Cal.3d 2 2006Where, as here, the statute does not restrict the power of the court but merely sets up a condition precedent to the establishment of plaintiff’s cause of action, we think the violation of the statutory provision constitutes an error of law rather than excess of jurisdiction.’ [Citation.]” (County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court (1971) 4 Cal.3d 545, 549 [ 94 Cal.Rptr. 158 , 483 P.2d 774 ]; accord, In re Marriage of Goddard (2004) 33 Cal.4th 49, 57 [ 14 Cal.Rptr.3d 50 , 90 P.3d 1209 ] [quoting County of Santa Clara, at p. 549]; see Poster v. Southern Cal. Rapid Transit Dist. (1990) 52 Cal.3d 2 | 1 | 1 |
Poster v. Southern California Rapid Transit Districtgreen2 sentences2006Where, as here, the statute does not restrict the power of the court but merely sets up a condition precedent to the establishment of plaintiff’s cause of action, we think the violation of the statutory provision constitutes an error of law rather than excess of jurisdiction.’ [Citation.]” (County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court (1971) 4 Cal.3d 545, 549 [ 94 Cal.Rptr. 158 , 483 P.2d 774 ]; accord, In re Marriage of Goddard (2004) 33 Cal.4th 49, 57 [ 14 Cal.Rptr.3d 50 , 90 P.3d 1209 ] [quoting County of Santa Clara, at p. 549]; see Poster v. Southern Cal. Rapid Transit Dist. (1990) 52 Cal.3d 2 2006Where, as here, the statute does not restrict the power of the court but merely sets up a condition precedent to the establishment of plaintiff’s cause of action, we think the violation of the statutory provision constitutes an error of law rather than excess of jurisdiction.’ [Citation.]” (County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court (1971) 4 Cal.3d 545, 549 [ 94 Cal.Rptr. 158 , 483 P.2d 774 ]; accord, In re Marriage of Goddard (2004) 33 Cal.4th 49, 57 [ 14 Cal.Rptr.3d 50 , 90 P.3d 1209 ] [quoting County of Santa Clara, at p. 549]; see Poster v. Southern Cal. Rapid Transit Dist. (1990) 52 Cal.3d 2 | 1 | 1 |
In Re Marriage of Goddardgreen2 sentences2006Where, as here, the statute does not restrict the power of the court but merely sets up a condition precedent to the establishment of plaintiff’s cause of action, we think the violation of the statutory provision constitutes an error of law rather than excess of jurisdiction.’ [Citation.]” (County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court (1971) 4 Cal.3d 545, 549 [ 94 Cal.Rptr. 158 , 483 P.2d 774 ]; accord, In re Marriage of Goddard (2004) 33 Cal.4th 49, 57 [ 14 Cal.Rptr.3d 50 , 90 P.3d 1209 ] [quoting County of Santa Clara, at p. 549]; see Poster v. Southern Cal. Rapid Transit Dist. (1990) 52 Cal.3d 2 2006Where, as here, the statute does not restrict the power of the court but merely sets up a condition precedent to the establishment of plaintiff’s cause of action, we think the violation of the statutory provision constitutes an error of law rather than excess of jurisdiction.’ [Citation.]” (County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court (1971) 4 Cal.3d 545, 549 [ 94 Cal.Rptr. 158 , 483 P.2d 774 ]; accord, In re Marriage of Goddard (2004) 33 Cal.4th 49, 57 [ 14 Cal.Rptr.3d 50 , 90 P.3d 1209 ] [quoting County of Santa Clara, at p. 549]; see Poster v. Southern Cal. Rapid Transit Dist. (1990) 52 Cal.3d 2 | 1 | 1 |
Garrison v. Rourkegreen2 sentences1965Where, as here, the statute does not restrict the power of the court but merely sets up a condition precedent . . . , we think the violation of the statutory provision constitutes an error of law rather than excess of jurisdiction. ’’ (See also Garrison v. Rourke, 32 Cal.2d 430, 435-436 [ 196 P.2d 884 ]; 1 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (1954) Jurisdiction, §§49-52, pp. 320-324.) Appellant also claims that, even if the court did have jurisdiction to entertain the petition, nevertheless respondent’s failure to file the petition at least 90 days before his date for discharge caused the court to conduct 1965Where, as here, the statute does not restrict the power of the court but merely sets up a condition precedent . . . , we think the violation of the statutory provision constitutes an error of law rather than excess of jurisdiction. ’’ (See also Garrison v. Rourke, 32 Cal.2d 430, 435-436 [ 196 P.2d 884 ]; 1 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (1954) Jurisdiction, §§49-52, pp. 320-324.) Appellant also claims that, even if the court did have jurisdiction to entertain the petition, nevertheless respondent’s failure to file the petition at least 90 days before his date for discharge caused the court to conduct | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Spence v. State of California
green
2 sentences1972It stated (p. 360): “[T]he statute does not restrict the power of the court but'merely sets up a condition precedent to the establishment of the plaintiff’s cause of action[;] we. think the violation of the statutory provision constitutes an error of law rather than excess of jurisdiction.” (Italics added.) Spence v. State of California, 198 Cal.App.2d 332 [ 18 Cal.Rptr. 302 ]. 1972It stated (p. 360): “[T]he statute does not restrict the power of the court but'merely sets up a condition precedent to the establishment of the plaintiff’s cause of action[;] we. think the violation of the statutory provision constitutes an error of law rather than excess of jurisdiction.” (Italics added.) Spence v. State of California, 198 Cal.App.2d 332 [ 18 Cal.Rptr. 302 ]. | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Farrell v. County of Placer
green
2 sentences1971Where, as here, the statute does not restrict the power of the court but merely sets up a condition precedent to the esablishment of plainiff’s cause of action, we think the violation of the statutory provision constitutes an error of law rather than excess of jurisdiction.” (P. 360.) Decreeing in Farrell v. County of Placer (1944) 23 Cal.2d 624 [ 145 P.2d 570 , 153 A.L.R. 323 ], that a county could be estopped from asserting a claims limitation, -we stated that compliance with such a statute does not involve jurisdiction. 1971Where, as here, the statute does not restrict the power of the court but merely sets up a condition precedent to the esablishment of plainiff’s cause of action, we think the violation of the statutory provision constitutes an error of law rather than excess of jurisdiction.” (P. 360.) Decreeing in Farrell v. County of Placer (1944) 23 Cal.2d 624 [ 145 P.2d 570 , 153 A.L.R. 323 ], that a county could be estopped from asserting a claims limitation, -we stated that compliance with such a statute does not involve jurisdiction. | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Van Hoosear v. Railroad Commission
green
2 sentences1947Dist. v. Superior Court, 20 Cal.2d 348 [ 125 P.2d 490 ]; Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal, 17 Cal.2d 280 [ 109 P.2d 942 , 132 A.L.R. 715 ]; Fortenbury v. Superior Court, 16 Cal.2d 405 [ 106 P.2d 411 ]; Van Hoosear v. Railroad Commission, 189 Cal. 228 [ 207 P. 903 ]; 21 Cal.Jur., Prohibition, 4, 9, 10.) In the Redlands School District case, certiorari was denied, the court holding: "Where, as here, the statute does not restrict the power of the court but merely sets up a condition precedent to the establishment of the plaintiff's cause of action, we think the violation of the statutory pro 1947Dist. v. Superior Court, 20 Cal.2d 348 [ 125 P.2d 490 ]; Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal, 17 Cal.2d 280 [ 109 P.2d 942 , 132 A.L.R. 715 ]; Fortenbury v. Superior Court, 16 Cal.2d 405 [ 106 P.2d 411 ]; Van Hoosear v. Railroad Commission, 189 Cal. 228 [ 207 P. 903 ]; 21 Cal.Jur., Prohibition, 4, 9, 10.) In the Redlands School District case, certiorari was denied, the court holding: "Where, as here, the statute does not restrict the power of the court but merely sets up a condition precedent to the establishment of the plaintiff's cause of action, we think the violation of the statutory pro | 1 | 1947–1947 |
Fortenbury v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences1947Dist. v. Superior Court, 20 Cal.2d 348 [ 125 P.2d 490 ]; Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal, 17 Cal.2d 280 [ 109 P.2d 942 , 132 A.L.R. 715 ]; Fortenbury v. Superior Court, 16 Cal.2d 405 [ 106 P.2d 411 ]; Van Hoosear v. Railroad Commission, 189 Cal. 228 [ 207 P. 903 ]; 21 Cal.Jur., Prohibition, 4, 9, 10.) In the Redlands School District case, certiorari was denied, the court holding: "Where, as here, the statute does not restrict the power of the court but merely sets up a condition precedent to the establishment of the plaintiff's cause of action, we think the violation of the statutory pro 1947Dist. v. Superior Court, 20 Cal.2d 348 [ 125 P.2d 490 ]; Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal, 17 Cal.2d 280 [ 109 P.2d 942 , 132 A.L.R. 715 ]; Fortenbury v. Superior Court, 16 Cal.2d 405 [ 106 P.2d 411 ]; Van Hoosear v. Railroad Commission, 189 Cal. 228 [ 207 P. 903 ]; 21 Cal.Jur., Prohibition, 4, 9, 10.) In the Redlands School District case, certiorari was denied, the court holding: "Where, as here, the statute does not restrict the power of the court but merely sets up a condition precedent to the establishment of the plaintiff's cause of action, we think the violation of the statutory pro | 1 | 1947–1947 |
Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal
green
2 sentences1947Dist. v. Superior Court, 20 Cal.2d 348 [ 125 P.2d 490 ]; Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal, 17 Cal.2d 280 [ 109 P.2d 942 , 132 A.L.R. 715 ]; Fortenbury v. Superior Court, 16 Cal.2d 405 [ 106 P.2d 411 ]; Van Hoosear v. Railroad Commission, 189 Cal. 228 [ 207 P. 903 ]; 21 Cal.Jur., Prohibition, 4, 9, 10.) In the Redlands School District case, certiorari was denied, the court holding: "Where, as here, the statute does not restrict the power of the court but merely sets up a condition precedent to the establishment of the plaintiff's cause of action, we think the violation of the statutory pro 1947Dist. v. Superior Court, 20 Cal.2d 348 [ 125 P.2d 490 ]; Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal, 17 Cal.2d 280 [ 109 P.2d 942 , 132 A.L.R. 715 ]; Fortenbury v. Superior Court, 16 Cal.2d 405 [ 106 P.2d 411 ]; Van Hoosear v. Railroad Commission, 189 Cal. 228 [ 207 P. 903 ]; 21 Cal.Jur., Prohibition, 4, 9, 10.) In the Redlands School District case, certiorari was denied, the court holding: "Where, as here, the statute does not restrict the power of the court but merely sets up a condition precedent to the establishment of the plaintiff's cause of action, we think the violation of the statutory pro | 1 | 1947–1947 |
Redlands High School District v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences1947Dist. v. Superior Court, 20 Cal.2d 348 [ 125 P.2d 490 ]; Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal, 17 Cal.2d 280 [ 109 P.2d 942 , 132 A.L.R. 715 ]; Fortenbury v. Superior Court, 16 Cal.2d 405 [ 106 P.2d 411 ]; Van Hoosear v. Railroad Commission, 189 Cal. 228 [ 207 P. 903 ]; 21 Cal.Jur., Prohibition, 4, 9, 10.) In the Redlands School District case, certiorari was denied, the court holding: "Where, as here, the statute does not restrict the power of the court but merely sets up a condition precedent to the establishment of the plaintiff's cause of action, we think the violation of the statutory pro 1947Dist. v. Superior Court, 20 Cal.2d 348 [ 125 P.2d 490 ]; Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal, 17 Cal.2d 280 [ 109 P.2d 942 , 132 A.L.R. 715 ]; Fortenbury v. Superior Court, 16 Cal.2d 405 [ 106 P.2d 411 ]; Van Hoosear v. Railroad Commission, 189 Cal. 228 [ 207 P. 903 ]; 21 Cal.Jur., Prohibition, 4, 9, 10.) In the Redlands School District case, certiorari was denied, the court holding: "Where, as here, the statute does not restrict the power of the court but merely sets up a condition precedent to the establishment of the plaintiff's cause of action, we think the violation of the statutory pro | 1 | 1947–1947 |
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.