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 1985–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Maguire v. Hibernia Savings & Loan Societygreen2 sentences2021(See Maguire, supra, 23 Cal.2d at p. 729 [“where the plaintiff is not entitled to a favorable declaration, the court should render a judgment embodying such determination and should not merely dismiss the action”].) It might be a good practice for a trial court, after ruling on a decisive demurrer in a declaratory judgment action, to cut and paste the court’s substantive legal analysis into the judgment itself, rather than leaving that substance in a separate minute order or a statement of decision. 2021(See Maguire, supra, 23 Cal.2d at p. 729 [“where the plaintiff is not entitled to a favorable declaration, the court should render a judgment embodying such determination and should not merely dismiss the action”].) It might be a good practice for a trial court, after ruling on a decisive demurrer in a declaratory judgment action, to cut and paste the court’s substantive legal analysis into the judgment itself, rather than leaving that substance in a separate minute order or a statement of decision. | 2 | 2 |
Brian C. v. Ginger K.green2 sentences2018(See Kusior v. Silver (1960) 54 Cal.2d 603 , 619, 7 Cal.Rptr. 129 , 354 P.2d 657 ; Brian C. v. Ginger K. (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1198 , 1203-1204, 92 Cal.Rptr.2d 294 ( Brian C. ).) "The Legislature ... used this conclusive presumption fiction for three public policy reasons, namely, (1) preservation of the integrity of the family; (2) protection of the innocent child from the social stigma of illegitimacy; and (3) a desire to have an individual rather than the state assume the financial burden of supporting the child." ( In re Marriage of B . (1981) 124 Cal.App.3d 524 , 529-530, 177 Cal.Rptr. 42 2018(See Kusior v. Silver (1960) 54 Cal.2d 603 , 619, 7 Cal.Rptr. 129 , 354 P.2d 657 ; Brian C. v. Ginger K. (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1198 , 1203-1204, 92 Cal.Rptr.2d 294 ( Brian C. ).) "The Legislature ... used this conclusive presumption fiction for three public policy reasons, namely, (1) preservation of the integrity of the family; (2) protection of the innocent child from the social stigma of illegitimacy; and (3) a desire to have an individual rather than the state assume the financial burden of supporting the child." ( In re Marriage of B . (1981) 124 Cal.App.3d 524 , 529-530, 177 Cal.Rptr. 42 | 1 | 2 |
Dryer v. Los Angeles Ramsgreen1 sentence2023(See, e.g., Dryer v. Los Angeles Rams (1985) 40 Cal.3d 406, 416, fn. 9 [CBAs are “ ‘unique in character’ ”; “concept of adhesion seems inconsistent with the substantive legal requirement . . . that parties to a collective bargaining agreement must negotiate with one another in good faith”].) Second, Tielemans has not identified any evidence demonstrating oppression or surprise here. | 1 | 1 |
Gerstein v. Pughgreen1 sentence2020Whether pretrial bail should have been granted is now a moot question as to White, but we have exercised our discretion to retain the matter for decision not only because it presents important issues that are capable of repetition yet may evade review (see In re Webb (2019) 7 Cal.5th 270, 273-274 ; accord, Gerstein v. Pugh (1975) 420 U.S. 103, 110, fn. 11 [“Pretrial detention is by nature temporary, and it is most unlikely that any given individual could have his constitutional claim decided on appeal before he is either released or convicted”]), but also “to provide guidance for future cases” | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Essick v. City of Los Angeles
green
2 sentences2021(See Essick v. City of Los Angeles (1950) 34 Cal.2d 614 , 624–625.) Then the “judgment” literally would “declare” the rights and duties of the parties; voilà: the demurrer would produce a “declaratory judgment” in name and in fact. 2021(See Essick v. City of Los Angeles (1950) 34 Cal.2d 614 , 624–625.) Then the “judgment” literally would “declare” the rights and duties of the parties; voilà: the demurrer would produce a “declaratory judgment” in name and in fact. | 2 | 2021–2021 |
Stephen B. v. Sharyne B.
green
2 sentences2018(See Kusior v. Silver (1960) 54 Cal.2d 603 , 619, 7 Cal.Rptr. 129 , 354 P.2d 657 ; Brian C. v. Ginger K. (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1198 , 1203-1204, 92 Cal.Rptr.2d 294 ( Brian C. ).) "The Legislature ... used this conclusive presumption fiction for three public policy reasons, namely, (1) preservation of the integrity of the family; (2) protection of the innocent child from the social stigma of illegitimacy; and (3) a desire to have an individual rather than the state assume the financial burden of supporting the child." ( In re Marriage of B . (1981) 124 Cal.App.3d 524 , 529-530, 177 Cal.Rptr. 42 2018(See Kusior v. Silver (1960) 54 Cal.2d 603 , 619, 7 Cal.Rptr. 129 , 354 P.2d 657 ; Brian C. v. Ginger K. (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1198 , 1203-1204, 92 Cal.Rptr.2d 294 ( Brian C. ).) "The Legislature ... used this conclusive presumption fiction for three public policy reasons, namely, (1) preservation of the integrity of the family; (2) protection of the innocent child from the social stigma of illegitimacy; and (3) a desire to have an individual rather than the state assume the financial burden of supporting the child." ( In re Marriage of B . (1981) 124 Cal.App.3d 524 , 529-530, 177 Cal.Rptr. 42 | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Kusior v. Silver
green
2 sentences2018(See Kusior v. Silver (1960) 54 Cal.2d 603 , 619, 7 Cal.Rptr. 129 , 354 P.2d 657 ; Brian C. v. Ginger K. (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1198 , 1203-1204, 92 Cal.Rptr.2d 294 ( Brian C. ).) "The Legislature ... used this conclusive presumption fiction for three public policy reasons, namely, (1) preservation of the integrity of the family; (2) protection of the innocent child from the social stigma of illegitimacy; and (3) a desire to have an individual rather than the state assume the financial burden of supporting the child." ( In re Marriage of B . (1981) 124 Cal.App.3d 524 , 529-530, 177 Cal.Rptr. 42 2018(See Kusior v. Silver (1960) 54 Cal.2d 603 , 619, 7 Cal.Rptr. 129 , 354 P.2d 657 ; Brian C. v. Ginger K. (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1198 , 1203-1204, 92 Cal.Rptr.2d 294 ( Brian C. ).) "The Legislature ... used this conclusive presumption fiction for three public policy reasons, namely, (1) preservation of the integrity of the family; (2) protection of the innocent child from the social stigma of illegitimacy; and (3) a desire to have an individual rather than the state assume the financial burden of supporting the child." ( In re Marriage of B . (1981) 124 Cal.App.3d 524 , 529-530, 177 Cal.Rptr. 42 | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Costa v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence2020(Costa v. Superior Court (2006) 37 Cal.4th 986, 994 ; see id. at pp. 1013-1029; cf. Webb, at p. 274 [declining to decide whether the record supported the bail condition because “[t]he district attorney expressly did not seek review of the specific question”].) Decisions concerning pretrial detention arise every day in our courts, so we “embrace the opportunity,” as the Attorney General requested at oral argument, to “provide instruction to the trial courts.” 2 In re WHITE Opinion of the Court by Cuéllar, J. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
In re Webb
green
1 sentence2020Whether pretrial bail should have been granted is now a moot question as to White, but we have exercised our discretion to retain the matter for decision not only because it presents important issues that are capable of repetition yet may evade review (see In re Webb (2019) 7 Cal.5th 270, 273-274 ; accord, Gerstein v. Pugh (1975) 420 U.S. 103, 110, fn. 11 [“Pretrial detention is by nature temporary, and it is most unlikely that any given individual could have his constitutional claim decided on appeal before he is either released or convicted”]), but also “to provide guidance for future cases” | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Saxena v. Goffney
green
1 sentence2016(See Sonbergh v. MacQuarrie (1952) 112 Cal.App.2d 771, 774 ; Saxena v. Goffney (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 316 , 324–325.) To determine the length of the relevant statute of limitations in this case, we look to the substantive legal claim in Jimena’s complaint. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Sonbergh v. MacQuarrie
green
1 sentence2016(See Sonbergh v. MacQuarrie (1952) 112 Cal.App.2d 771, 774 ; Saxena v. Goffney (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 316 , 324–325.) To determine the length of the relevant statute of limitations in this case, we look to the substantive legal claim in Jimena’s complaint. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Graham v. Scissor-Tail, Inc.
green
2 sentences1985Moreover, as we noted in Graham, “a contract of adhesion is fully enforceable according to its terms” unless it violates the weaker party’s reasonable expectations or is unduly oppressive or unconscionable. ( 28 Cal.3d at p. 819 .) Clearly, courts may enforce reasonable and fair arbitration provisions contained in contracts of adhesion. 1985Moreover, as we noted in Graham, "a contract of adhesion is fully enforceable according to its terms" unless it violates the weaker party's reasonable expectations or is unduly oppressive or unconscionable. ( 28 Cal.3d at p. 819 .) Clearly, courts may enforce reasonable and fair arbitration provisions contained in contracts of adhesion. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
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.