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 1986–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Buckert v. Briggsgreen1 sentence2023(Hearn, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at p. 1206 ; see also Buckert v. Briggs (1971) 15 Cal.App.3d 296, 302 [inability to immediately pay retainer may be excusable reason for delay in engaging successor counsel].) 10 As it turned out, GreenGro was not able to complete a retainer agreement with the firm it had identified before the OSC hearing on the 30-day deadline, despite securing funding the day after the hearing. | 1 | 1 |
Echeverria v. Johnsongreen1 sentence2021This does not establish that Turkull’s opinion fails to constitute substantial evidence supporting the court’s judgment. 10 (See Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Cases (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 292, 314 [“testimony of a single witness may be substantial evidence, including the testimony of an expert”].) Refusal to Order Further Stay Mbanugo also asserts the trial court “erred when it allowed the sheriff’s sale to proceed . . . a day after the hearing on” Mbanugo’s application for a preliminary injunction and motion to deem the foreclosure judgment satisfied. | 1 | 1 |
Sequoia Union High School District v. Aurora Charter High Schoolgreen1 sentence2004It anticipated a student body of 30 freshmen, 30 sophomores, 30 juniors, and 20 seniors.” (Sequoia, supra, 112 Cal.App.4th at p. 196.) In a footnote, Sequoia noted that the State Board of Education adopted regulations the day after the hearing in the trial court. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Marbleygreen2 sentences1987(People v. Marbley (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 45, 48 [ 225 Cal.Rptr. 918 ].) The day after the hearing on the Wheeler motion the prosecutor informed defense counsel that he planned to challenge the only Black that was presently on the jury. 1987(People v. Marbley (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 45, 48 [ 225 Cal.Rptr. 918 ].) The day after the hearing on the Wheeler motion the prosecutor informed defense counsel that he planned to challenge the only Black that was presently on the jury. | 1 | 1 |
National Labor Relations Board v. Scrivenergreen2 sentences1986The NLRB ordered Dal-Tex to rescind the warning given to Anderson, and this ruling was sustained by the circuit court. 5 (Cf. NLRB v. Scrivener, supra, 405 U.S. 117, 124 [ 31 L.Ed.2d 79, 84 ].) Thus, a supervisor need not actually testify in order to fall within the ambit of the NLRA. *296 Disposition The judgment of dismissal entered as to Attebery is affirmed. 1986The NLRB ordered Dal-Tex to rescind the warning given to Anderson, and this ruling was sustained by the circuit court. 5 (Cf. NLRB v. Scrivener, supra, 405 U.S. 117, 124 [ 31 L.Ed.2d 79, 84 ].) Thus, a supervisor need not actually testify in order to fall within the ambit of the NLRA. *296 Disposition The judgment of dismissal entered as to Attebery is affirmed. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hernandez v. Mendoza
green
1 sentence2025Likening the matter to Hernandez, the court observed, “[Rudy’s was] not entitled to rely on the conclusory statements by Teresa” that it committed no violations and instead was “required ‘to draw whatever reasonable inference[ ] it can from the employee’s evidence where the employer cannot provide accurate information.’ ” (See Hernandez, supra, 199 Cal.App.3d at p. 728 .) The court found “[Rudy’s has] not produced reliable evidence of the precise amount of work performed or reliable evidence negating the reasonableness of the inference to be drawn from [Arana]’s evidence.” As to meal periods, | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Hearn v. Howard
green
1 sentence2023(Hearn, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at p. 1206 ; see also Buckert v. Briggs (1971) 15 Cal.App.3d 296, 302 [inability to immediately pay retainer may be excusable reason for delay in engaging successor counsel].) 10 As it turned out, GreenGro was not able to complete a retainer agreement with the firm it had identified before the OSC hearing on the 30-day deadline, despite securing funding the day after the hearing. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Diaz
green
1 sentence2015First, the motion does not address any specific language employed by Rosel so as to preemptively raise the issue of improper discretion implied in the use of “can” rather than “will.” Second, while the People’s motion does reference Chavez’s use of the verb “conseguir” and this court’s 3Although dated February 4, 2013, we note the motion is file-stamped February 5, 2013, the day after the hearing on this issue had concluded. 9. holding in People v. Diaz (1983) 140 Cal.App.3d 813 , the People’s references thereto are in the context of addressing defendant’s coercion argument. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.