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.
7 California opinions name it 1 courts 1964–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
Holland v. MORSE DIESEL INTERNAT., INC.green1 sentence2016(See Holland v. Morse Diesel Internat., Inc. (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 1443, 1447 [“If facts appearing in the exhibits contradict those alleged, the facts in the exhibits take precedence”].) To the extent the negligent misrepresentation claim was based on the same four contractual promises of future performance, it is legally untenable for the additional 16 reason that promissory fraud may not be recast as negligent misrepresentation. | 1 | 1 |
Ruiz v. Harbor View Community Ass'ngreen2 sentences2007Indeed, one court has observed that clauses (1) and (2) of subdivision (e) of Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16—the SLAPP statute—defining protected activity to include statements or writings made before a judicial proceeding or made in connection with an issue under review by a judicial body—“are parallel to and coextensive with the definition of privileged communication under Civil Code section 47, subdivision (b).” 14 {Ruiz v. Harbor View Community Assn. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 1456, 1474 [ 37 Cal.Rptr.3d 133 ].) Politis makes two arguments in an attempt to avoid the bar of the litigati 2007Indeed, one court has observed that clauses (1) and (2) of subdivision (e) of Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16—the SLAPP statute—defining protected activity to include statements or writings made before a judicial proceeding or made in connection with an issue under review by a judicial body—“are parallel to and coextensive with the definition of privileged communication under Civil Code section 47, subdivision (b).” 14 {Ruiz v. Harbor View Community Assn. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 1456, 1474 [ 37 Cal.Rptr.3d 133 ].) Politis makes two arguments in an attempt to avoid the bar of the litigati | 1 | 1 |
Freedland v. Grecogreen2 sentences1967(Valinda Builders, Inc. v. Bissner, 230 Cal.App.2d 106, 112 [ 40 Cal.Rptr. 735 ]; Freedland v. Greco, 45 Cal.2d 462, 468 [ 289 P.2d 463 ].) Apparently in an attempt to avoid the bar to her action established by section 580b, appellant’s fourth amended complaint alleged that respondents had rendered her option “meaningless” by quitclaiming any interest they might have had therein to the original seller, Star Valley Ranch. 1967(Valinda Builders, Inc. v. Bissner, 230 Cal.App.2d 106, 112 [ 40 Cal.Rptr. 735 ]; Freedland v. Greco, 45 Cal.2d 462, 468 [ 289 P.2d 463 ].) Apparently in an attempt to avoid the bar to her action established by section 580b, appellant’s fourth amended complaint alleged that respondents had rendered her option “meaningless” by quitclaiming any interest they might have had therein to the original seller, Star Valley Ranch. | 1 | 1 |
Valinda Builders, Inc. v. Bissnergreen2 sentences1967(Valinda Builders, Inc. v. Bissner, 230 Cal.App.2d 106, 112 [ 40 Cal.Rptr. 735 ]; Freedland v. Greco, 45 Cal.2d 462, 468 [ 289 P.2d 463 ].) Apparently in an attempt to avoid the bar to her action established by section 580b, appellant’s fourth amended complaint alleged that respondents had rendered her option “meaningless” by quitclaiming any interest they might have had therein to the original seller, Star Valley Ranch. 1967(Valinda Builders, Inc. v. Bissner, 230 Cal.App.2d 106, 112 [ 40 Cal.Rptr. 735 ]; Freedland v. Greco, 45 Cal.2d 462, 468 [ 289 P.2d 463 ].) Apparently in an attempt to avoid the bar to her action established by section 580b, appellant’s fourth amended complaint alleged that respondents had rendered her option “meaningless” by quitclaiming any interest they might have had therein to the original seller, Star Valley Ranch. | 1 | 1 |
Sharon v. Sharon, 11991 (Cal. 7-17-1889)green1 sentence1964If a promise to cohabit excludes the gamut of promises described by plaintiff, then, in Professor Pomeroy's phrase, cohabit is nothing but "a delicate euphemism for copulation." (See 1 Armstrong, Cal. Family Law, p. 7.) [8] The accepted California concept of cohabitation is the mutual assumption of those marital rights, duties and obligations which are usually manifested by married people, including but not necessarily dependent upon sexual relations. ( People v. McIntyre, 213 Cal. 50, 54-55 [ 1 P.2d 443 ]; Sharon v. Sharon, 79 Cal. 633, 670 [ 22 P. 26, 131 ].) Considered as an exercise of adv | 1 | 1 |
People v. McIntyregreen2 sentences1964If a promise to cohabit excludes the gamut of promises described by plaintiff, then, in Professor Pomeroy's phrase, cohabit is nothing but "a delicate euphemism for copulation." (See 1 Armstrong, Cal. Family Law, p. 7.) [8] The accepted California concept of cohabitation is the mutual assumption of those marital rights, duties and obligations which are usually manifested by married people, including but not necessarily dependent upon sexual relations. ( People v. McIntyre, 213 Cal. 50, 54-55 [ 1 P.2d 443 ]; Sharon v. Sharon, 79 Cal. 633, 670 [ 22 P. 26, 131 ].) Considered as an exercise of adv 1964If a promise to cohabit excludes the gamut of promises described by plaintiff, then, in Professor Pomeroy's phrase, cohabit is nothing but "a delicate euphemism for copulation." (See 1 Armstrong, Cal. Family Law, p. 7.) [8] The accepted California concept of cohabitation is the mutual assumption of those marital rights, duties and obligations which are usually manifested by married people, including but not necessarily dependent upon sexual relations. ( People v. McIntyre, 213 Cal. 50, 54-55 [ 1 P.2d 443 ]; Sharon v. Sharon, 79 Cal. 633, 670 [ 22 P. 26, 131 ].) Considered as an exercise of adv | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Joaquin v. City of Los Angeles
green
1 sentence2013Leaving aside the issue of invited error on the part of the District, the District relies on dictum in a recently decided case, Joaquin v. City of Los Angeles (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1207 (Joaquin), to the effect that CACI No. 2505 fails to require retaliatory intent. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Zamora
green
2 sentences1988On April 24, 1986, defendants requested that the preliminary hearing be continued and that a hearing on the issue of the statute of limitations be held pursuant to People v. Zamora (1976) 18 Cal.3d 538 [ 134 Cal.Rptr. 784 , 557 P.2d 75 ]. 1988On April 24, 1986, defendants requested that the preliminary hearing be continued and that a hearing on the issue of the statute of limitations be held pursuant to People v. Zamora (1976) 18 Cal.3d 538 [ 134 Cal.Rptr. 784 , 557 P.2d 75 ]. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
United States v. Clarke
green
1 sentence1975The trial court apparently adopted this theory when it concluded “all of the payments which [respondent] seeks to be refunded in this case were made in the summer of 1970.” Again, respondent relies on McDougall v. County of Marin, supra, and United States v. Clarke, supra, for its interpretation of when payment occurred so as to commence the running of the three-year statute. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
In re González
green
1 sentence1964If a promise to cohabit excludes the gamut of promises described by plaintiff, then, in Professor Pomeroy's phrase, cohabit is nothing but "a delicate euphemism for copulation." (See 1 Armstrong, Cal. Family Law, p. 7.) [8] The accepted California concept of cohabitation is the mutual assumption of those marital rights, duties and obligations which are usually manifested by married people, including but not necessarily dependent upon sexual relations. ( People v. McIntyre, 213 Cal. 50, 54-55 [ 1 P.2d 443 ]; Sharon v. Sharon, 79 Cal. 633, 670 [ 22 P. 26, 131 ].) Considered as an exercise of adv | 1 | 1964–1964 |
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.