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 1935–2002 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 |
|---|---|---|
Dickey v. Kuhngreen2 sentences1946(Dickey v. Kuhn, 125 Cal.App. 68, 72 [ 13 P.2d 834 ].) The court having determined pursuant to the waiver of a jury trial that the lease was in full force and effect at all times subsequent to February 23, 1940, subject to plaintiff’s third affirmative defense, the final form of the judgment was to be determined by the verdict upon the issues raised by the third affirmative defense. 1946(Dickey v. Kuhn, 125 Cal.App. 68, 72 [ 13 P.2d 834 ].) The court having determined pursuant to the waiver of a jury trial that the lease was in full force and effect at all times subsequent to February 23, 1940, subject to plaintiff’s third affirmative defense, the final form of the judgment was to be determined by the verdict upon the issues raised by the third affirmative defense. | 1 | 1 |
Downs v. Kroegergreen2 sentences1944That as a result of said change in conditions, the enforcement of said agreement ... would not benefit the plaintiffs but would irreparably injure the defendants and the plaintiffs in that the lots in said Palisades Tract described in ... [the agreement] would not be occupied by persons of the white race and could not be occupied by persons who were non-Caucasians." [1] In this connection defendants contend that the undisputed evidence introduced in support of the third affirmative defense demonstrates such change in the character of the surrounding neighborhood (including non- restricted lots 1944That as a result of said change in conditions, the enforcement of said agreement ... would not benefit the plaintiffs but would irreparably injure the defendants and the plaintiffs in that the lots in said Palisades Tract described in ... [the agreement] would not be occupied by persons of the white race and could not be occupied by persons who were non-Caucasians." [1] In this connection defendants contend that the undisputed evidence introduced in support of the third affirmative defense demonstrates such change in the character of the surrounding neighborhood (including non- restricted lots | 1 | 1 |
Marra v. Aetna Construction Co.green2 sentences1944That as a result of said change in conditions, the enforcement of said agreement ... would not benefit the plaintiffs but would irreparably injure the defendants and the plaintiffs in that the lots in said Palisades Tract described in ... [the agreement] would not be occupied by persons of the white race and could not be occupied by persons who were non-Caucasians." [1] In this connection defendants contend that the undisputed evidence introduced in support of the third affirmative defense demonstrates such change in the character of the surrounding neighborhood (including non- restricted lots 1944That as a result of said change in conditions, the enforcement of said agreement ... would not benefit the plaintiffs but would irreparably injure the defendants and the plaintiffs in that the lots in said Palisades Tract described in ... [the agreement] would not be occupied by persons of the white race and could not be occupied by persons who were non-Caucasians." [1] In this connection defendants contend that the undisputed evidence introduced in support of the third affirmative defense demonstrates such change in the character of the surrounding neighborhood (including non- restricted lots | 1 | 1 |
Williams v. McDowellgreen2 sentences1944The failure of the trial court to specifically find on the issues raised by the third affirmative defense therefore becomes material. [6] The only finding of the trial court directed to the issues raised by such special defense is that "As to the allegations of ... [such defense], the court finds that since 1927 negro and Mexican occupancy of properties has increased near or in the vicinity of the lots described in said race restriction agreement, but that there has been no change in negro occupancy as to any of the lots described in said race restriction agreement, except the occupancy compla 1944The failure of the trial court to specifically find on the issues raised by the third affirmative defense therefore becomes material. [6] The only finding of the trial court directed to the issues raised by such special defense is that "As to the allegations of ... [such defense], the court finds that since 1927 negro and Mexican occupancy of properties has increased near or in the vicinity of the lots described in said race restriction agreement, but that there has been no change in negro occupancy as to any of the lots described in said race restriction agreement, except the occupancy compla | 1 | 1 |
Hess v. Country Club Parkgreen2 sentences1944That as a result of said change in conditions, the enforcement of said agreement ... would not benefit the plaintiffs but would irreparably injure the defendants and the plaintiffs in that the lots in said Palisades Tract described in ... [the agreement] would not be occupied by persons of the white race and could not be occupied by persons who were non-Caucasians." [1] In this connection defendants contend that the undisputed evidence introduced in support of the third affirmative defense demonstrates such change in the character of the surrounding neighborhood (including non- restricted lots 1944That as a result of said change in conditions, the enforcement of said agreement ... would not benefit the plaintiffs but would irreparably injure the defendants and the plaintiffs in that the lots in said Palisades Tract described in ... [the agreement] would not be occupied by persons of the white race and could not be occupied by persons who were non-Caucasians." [1] In this connection defendants contend that the undisputed evidence introduced in support of the third affirmative defense demonstrates such change in the character of the surrounding neighborhood (including non- restricted lots | 1 | 1 |
Hurd v. Albertgreen2 sentences1944That as a result of said change in conditions, the enforcement of said agreement ... would not benefit the plaintiffs but would irreparably injure the defendants and the plaintiffs in that the lots in said Palisades Tract described in ... [the agreement] would not be occupied by persons of the white race and could not be occupied by persons who were non-Caucasians." [1] In this connection defendants contend that the undisputed evidence introduced in support of the third affirmative defense demonstrates such change in the character of the surrounding neighborhood (including non- restricted lots 1944That as a result of said change in conditions, the enforcement of said agreement ... would not benefit the plaintiffs but would irreparably injure the defendants and the plaintiffs in that the lots in said Palisades Tract described in ... [the agreement] would not be occupied by persons of the white race and could not be occupied by persons who were non-Caucasians." [1] In this connection defendants contend that the undisputed evidence introduced in support of the third affirmative defense demonstrates such change in the character of the surrounding neighborhood (including non- restricted lots | 1 | 1 |
Friesen v. City of Glendalegreen2 sentences1944That as a result of said change in conditions, the enforcement of said agreement ... would not benefit the plaintiffs but would irreparably injure the defendants and the plaintiffs in that the lots in said Palisades Tract described in ... [the agreement] would not be occupied by persons of the white race and could not be occupied by persons who were non-Caucasians." [1] In this connection defendants contend that the undisputed evidence introduced in support of the third affirmative defense demonstrates such change in the character of the surrounding neighborhood (including non- restricted lots 1944That as a result of said change in conditions, the enforcement. of said agreement . . . would not benefit the plaintiffs but would irreparably injure the defendants and the plaintiffs in that the lots in said Palisades Tract described in . . . [the agreement] would not be occupied by persons of the white race and could not be occupied by persons who were non-Caucasians.” In this connection defendants contend that the undisputed evidence introduced in support of the third affirmative defense demonstrates such change in the character of the surrounding neighborhood (including non-restricted lots | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Skyline Homes, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations
green
2 sentences2002It concluded that federal preemption did not exist; that the agency’s determination of its own regulation deserved great weight; and that Skyline Homes, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations (1985) 165 Cal.App.3d 239 [ 211 Cal.Rptr. 792 ] “still governs as to calculating overtime wages.” Employer amended its answer to assert a third affirmative defense, that it had made additional overtime payments which should be credited against any liability. 2002It concluded that federal preemption did not exist; that the agency’s determination of its own regulation deserved great weight; and that Skyline Homes, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations (1985) 165 Cal.App.3d 239 [ 211 Cal.Rptr. 792 ] “still governs as to calculating overtime wages.” Employer amended its answer to assert a third affirmative defense, that it had made additional overtime payments which should be credited against any liability. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
D'Oench, Duhme & Co. v. Federal Deposit Insurance
green
2 sentences1996In the third affirmative defense FDIC states: “The Complaint is barred by D’Oench, Duhme & Co. v. FDIC (1942) 315 U.S. 447 [ 86 L.Ed. 956 , 62 S.Ct. 676 ] and its progeny.” The fourth affirmative defense alleges that the complaint is barred by section 1823. 1996In the third affirmative defense FDIC states: “The Complaint is barred by D’Oench, Duhme & Co. v. FDIC (1942) 315 U.S. 447 [ 86 L.Ed. 956 , 62 S.Ct. 676 ] and its progeny.” The fourth affirmative defense alleges that the complaint is barred by section 1823. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Baugh v. Rogers
green
2 sentences1993Plaintiffs opposed the motion and cited as controlling Baugh v. Rogers (1944) 24 Cal.2d 200 [ 148 P.2d 633 ]. 1993Plaintiffs opposed the motion and cited as controlling Baugh v. Rogers (1944) 24 Cal.2d 200 [ 148 P.2d 633 ]. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
City of Long Beach v. Bozek
green
1 sentence1985This case is yet another example of perceived available remedies afforded by section 128.5. 3 The recent amendment to section 128.5 further codifies and clarifies the application of the section as contemplated by City of Long Beach v. Bozek, supra, 31 Cal.3d 527 and this opinion. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Publishers Distributing Service, Inc. v. Southern California School Book Depository, Ltd.
green
2 sentences1951Depository, Ltd., 14 Cal.App.2d 448 [ 58 P.2d 401 ].)” In addition to finding that the discharge was without cause the court also found that it was not true, as alleged in the third affirmative defense, that pursuant to paragraph 7 of the contract respondent had been fully compensated. 1951Depository, Ltd., 14 Cal.App.2d 448 [ 58 P.2d 401 ].)” In addition to finding that the discharge was without cause the court also found that it was not true, as alleged in the third affirmative defense, that pursuant to paragraph 7 of the contract respondent had been fully compensated. | 1 | 1951–1951 |
Stavnow v. Winfree
neutral
2 sentences1935Code; Stavnow v. Winfree, 99 Cal. App. 566 [ 278 Pac. 905 ] ; Bridge v. Ruggles, 202 Cal. 326 [ 260 Pac. 553 ].) No evidence was offered in support of the third affirmative defense. 1935Code; Stavnow v. Winfree, 99 Cal. App. 566 [ 278 Pac. 905 ] ; Bridge v. Ruggles, 202 Cal. 326 [ 260 Pac. 553 ].) No evidence was offered in support of the third affirmative defense. | 1 | 1935–1935 |
Bridge v. Ruggles
green
2 sentences1935Code; Stavnow v. Winfree, 99 Cal. App. 566 [ 278 Pac. 905 ] ; Bridge v. Ruggles, 202 Cal. 326 [ 260 Pac. 553 ].) No evidence was offered in support of the third affirmative defense. 1935Code; Stavnow v. Winfree, 99 Cal. App. 566 [ 278 Pac. 905 ] ; Bridge v. Ruggles, 202 Cal. 326 [ 260 Pac. 553 ].) No evidence was offered in support of the third affirmative defense. | 1 | 1935–1935 |
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.