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 2 courts 1939–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Gonzalesgreen2 sentences2019We will not “insert missing terms into the statute or adopt an interpretation precluded by the plain [statutory] language.” (Yamada v. Snipes (9th Cir. 2015) 786 F.3d 1182, 1188 ; see People v. Gonzalez (2017) 2 Cal.5th 858, 871 .) Equally without merit is O&C Creditors’ claim that Stephens did not attempt to exercise its option under Business and Professions Code section 6147, subdivision (b) until it was too late to do so and that its attempt to rescind the agreement was untimely and thus ineffective. 2019We will not “insert missing terms into the statute or adopt an interpretation precluded by the plain [statutory] language.” (Yamada v. Snipes (9th Cir. 2015) 786 F.3d 1182, 1188 ; see People v. Gonzalez (2017) 2 Cal.5th 858, 871 .) Equally without merit is O&C Creditors’ claim that Stephens did not attempt to exercise its option under Business and Professions Code section 6147, subdivision (b) until it was too late to do so and that its attempt to rescind the agreement was untimely and thus ineffective. | 2 | 2 |
Estate of Maniscalcogreen2 sentences2009Because the determination of whether a party is an interested person pursuant to Probate Code section 48 is subject to the probate court's discretion, we apply the deferential abuse of discretion standard in reviewing the determination. ( Estate of Maniscalco, supra , 9 Cal.App.4th at p. 525 .) The probate court analyzed Travelers's standing as follows: "Here [the Administrator] is attempting to allow a creditors claim which may be invalid and time barred under the statute without obtaining court approval with respect to the filing of that late claim. 2009(Estate of Maniscalco, supra, 9 Cal.App.4th at p. 525.) The probate court analyzed Travelers’s standing as follows: “Here [the Administrator] is attempting to allow a creditors claim which may be invalid and time barred under the statute without obtaining court approval with respect to the filing of that late claim. | 1 | 2 |
Wheeler v. Insurance Co.green2 sentences1939(Woodmen of the World v. Rutledge, 133 Cal. 640, 644 [ 65 Pac. 1105 ] ; Wheeler v. Factors, etc., Inc., 101 U. S. 439, 441 [ 25 L. 1939(Woodmen of the World v. Rutledge, 133 Cal. 640, 644 [ 65 Pac. 1105 ] ; Wheeler v. Factors, etc., Inc., 101 U. S. 439, 441 [ 25 L. | 1 | 1 |
Woodmen of the World v. Rutledgegreen2 sentences1939(Woodmen of the World v. Rutledge, 133 Cal. 640, 644 [ 65 Pac. 1105 ] ; Wheeler v. Factors, etc., Inc., 101 U. S. 439, 441 [ 25 L. 1939(Woodmen of the World v. Rutledge, 133 Cal. 640, 644 [ 65 Pac. 1105 ] ; Wheeler v. Factors, etc., Inc., 101 U. S. 439, 441 [ 25 L. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Roy Allan Slurry Seal, Inc. v. Am. Asphalt S., Inc.
green
2 sentences2019(Park, supra, 2 Cal.5th at p. 1064 .) Protected activities must “supply elements of the challenged claim.” (Ibid.) That is simply not the case here, as demonstrated by the elements of C&O Creditors’ claim for intentional interference with business advantage, which are: “(1) the existence, between the plaintiff and some third party, of an economic relationship that contains the probability of future economic benefit to the plaintiff; (2) the defendant’s knowledge of the relationship; (3) intentionally wrongful acts designed to disrupt the relationship; (4) actual disruption of the relationship; 2019(Park, supra, 2 Cal.5th at p. 1064 .) Protected activities must “supply elements of the challenged claim.” (Ibid.) That is simply not the case here, as demonstrated by the elements of C&O Creditors’ claim for intentional interference with business advantage, which are: “(1) the existence, between the plaintiff and some third party, of an economic relationship that contains the probability of future economic benefit to the plaintiff; (2) the defendant’s knowledge of the relationship; (3) intentionally wrongful acts designed to disrupt the relationship; (4) actual disruption of the relationship; | 2 | 2019–2019 |
Park v. Bd. of Trs. of the Cal. State Univ.
green
2 sentences2019(Park, supra, 2 Cal.5th at p. 1064 .) Protected activities must “supply elements of the challenged claim.” (Ibid.) That is simply not the case here, as demonstrated by the elements of C&O Creditors’ claim for intentional interference with business advantage, which are: “(1) the existence, between the plaintiff and some third party, of an economic relationship that contains the probability of future economic benefit to the plaintiff; (2) the defendant’s knowledge of the relationship; (3) intentionally wrongful acts designed to disrupt the relationship; (4) actual disruption of the relationship; 2019(Park, supra, 2 Cal.5th at p. 1064 .) Protected activities must “supply elements of the challenged claim.” (Ibid.) That is simply not the case here, as demonstrated by the elements of C&O Creditors’ claim for intentional interference with business advantage, which are: “(1) the existence, between the plaintiff and some third party, of an economic relationship that contains the probability of future economic benefit to the plaintiff; (2) the defendant’s knowledge of the relationship; (3) intentionally wrongful acts designed to disrupt the relationship; (4) actual disruption of the relationship; | 2 | 2019–2019 |
Jimmy Yamada v. William Snipes
green
2 sentences2019We will not “insert missing terms into the statute or adopt an interpretation precluded by the plain [statutory] language.” (Yamada v. Snipes (9th Cir. 2015) 786 F.3d 1182, 1188 ; see People v. Gonzalez (2017) 2 Cal.5th 858, 871 .) Equally without merit is O&C Creditors’ claim that Stephens did not attempt to exercise its option under Business and Professions Code section 6147, subdivision (b) until it was too late to do so and that its attempt to rescind the agreement was untimely and thus ineffective. 2019We will not “insert missing terms into the statute or adopt an interpretation precluded by the plain [statutory] language.” (Yamada v. Snipes (9th Cir. 2015) 786 F.3d 1182, 1188 ; see People v. Gonzalez (2017) 2 Cal.5th 858, 871 .) Equally without merit is O&C Creditors’ claim that Stephens did not attempt to exercise its option under Business and Professions Code section 6147, subdivision (b) until it was too late to do so and that its attempt to rescind the agreement was untimely and thus ineffective. | 2 | 2019–2019 |
Jenkins v. Hill
green
1 sentence1994More importantly, in light of the issues raised by this appeal, the court held the administrator lacked standing to question the beneficiary’s insurable interest. “. . . the insurer is the only party who can raise the question of insurable interest, ... if the insurer waives the question of interest and pays the money to the named beneficiary, or into court, neither the personal representative nor the creditors can claim the proceeds on that ground.” (Jenkins v. Hill, supra, 35 Cal.App.2d at p. 524 .) Karen’s exclusive rights are reflected in the language of the insurance contract itself. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Silverton v. State Bar
green
2 sentences1975In summary, petitioner’s contentions, taken as a whole, fail to meet his burden (In re Silverton (1975) 14 Cal.3d 517 , atp. 523 [ 121 Cal.Rptr. 596 , 535 P.2d 724 ]) of showing that the board’s recommendation is erroneous or unlawful. 1975In summary, petitioner’s contentions, taken as a whole, fail to meet his burden (In re Silverton (1975) 14 Cal.3d 517 , atp. 523 [ 121 Cal.Rptr. 596 , 535 P.2d 724 ]) of showing that the board’s recommendation is erroneous or unlawful. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
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.