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 1896–2021 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Phelan v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1975II “Section 1086 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that the writ of mandate ‘must be issued in all cases where there is not a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy, in the ordinary course of law.’* [“*Section 1103 of the Code of Civil Procedure contains a similar provision with respect to the writ of prohibition.”] Although the statute does not expressly forbid the issuance of the writ if another adequate remedy exists, it has long been established as a general rule that the writ will not be issued if another such remedy was available to the petitioner. [Citations.] The burden, of course, i 1975II “Section 1086 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that the writ of mandate ‘must be issued in all cases where there is not a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy, in the ordinary course of law.’* [“*Section 1103 of the Code of Civil Procedure contains a similar provision with respect to the writ of prohibition.”] Although the statute does not expressly forbid the issuance of the writ if another adequate remedy exists, it has long been established as a general rule that the writ will not be issued if another such remedy was available to the petitioner. [Citations.] The burden, of course, i | 2 | 2 |
Carroll v. Civil Service Commissiongreen2 sentences1975(See Carroll v. Civil Service Commission (1970) 11 Cal.App.3d 727, 733 [ 90 Cal.Rptr. 128 ]; Code Civ. 1975(See Carroll v. Civil Service Commission (1970) 11 Cal.App.3d 727, 733 [ 90 Cal.Rptr. 128 ]; Code Civ. | 1 | 1 |
Frost v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1968Whatever error may be committed in the exercise of that power may then be considered on a review of the final judgment. “ It certainly cannot be held to be the law that *268 the proceeding before a court may be arrested at any particular time in the progress thereof to determine whether the court has committed error either in the matter of putting its jurisdiction in motion or in ruling upon some proposition arising during the course of the hearing of the proceeding.” (Frost v. Superior Court, 41 Cal.App. 580, 584-585 [ 183 P. 206 ].) In our opinion, the governing principles thus announced in 1968Whatever error may be committed in the exercise of that power may then be considered on a review of the final judgment. “ It certainly cannot be held to be the law that *268 the proceeding before a court may be arrested at any particular time in the progress thereof to determine whether the court has committed error either in the matter of putting its jurisdiction in motion or in ruling upon some proposition arising during the course of the hearing of the proceeding.” (Frost v. Superior Court, 41 Cal.App. 580, 584-585 [ 183 P. 206 ].) In our opinion, the governing principles thus announced in | 1 | 1 |
Balaam v. Perazzogreen2 sentences1950The order reducing the judgment from $2,000 to $1,250 was a special order after final judgment, and as such it would ordinarily be appealable under subdivision 2 of section 963 of the Code of Civil Procedure which provides that an appeal may be taken "from any special order made after final judgment." (See Balaam v. Perazzo, 211 Cal. 375, 381 [ 295 P. 330 ].) It appears, however, that there are conflicting lines of cases, none of which has been overruled, upon the question whether an appeal will lie from a special order after final judgment where the court was without power to make the order. 1950The order reducing the judgment from $2,000 to $1,250 was a special order after final judgment, and as such it would ordinarily be appealable under subdivision 2 of section 963 of the Code of Civil Procedure which provides that an appeal may be taken "from any special order made after final judgment." (See Balaam v. Perazzo, 211 Cal. 375, 381 [ 295 P. 330 ].) It appears, however, that there are conflicting lines of cases, none of which has been overruled, upon the question whether an appeal will lie from a special order after final judgment where the court was without power to make the order. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People ex rel. Polhemus v. Pratt
neutral
2 sentences1925To review errors is not the office of the writ of mandamus” (People v. Pratt, 28 Cal. 166 [ 87 Am. 1896As was said in People v. Pratt, supra: “If the court has committed an error in denying the plaintiff’s motion, the same can be reviewed on appeal, which is a speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law within the meaning of the four hundred and sixty-eighth section of the practice act.” If, when the case -of the People v. Higgins shall have come on for trial, the plaintiffs therein shall elect to submit it on a motion for judgment on the pleadings, and the court shall decide against them and render judgment for defendant, •an appeal will be the natural and regular remedy; and if t | 2 | 1896–1925 |
F.People v. Monier
green
1 sentence2021Beyond all that, superimposed on all these rules is the principle noted in F.P. v. Monier (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1099, 1108 , that even if a court has committed error—which Schuldner has not shown—the appealed-from order must be affirmed unless it has resulted in a miscarriage of justice. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Times-Mirror Co. v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences1955(See Cahill v. Superior Court, 145 Cal. 42 [ 78 P. 467 ] ; Times-Mirror Co. v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.2d 309 [ 44 P.2d 547 ] ; Levy v. Superior Court, 15 Cal.2d 692 [ 104 P.2d 770 , 129 A.L.R. 956 ].) A dismissal of a proceeding or a denial of relief on the sole ground of lack of jurisdiction is not a decision on the merits. 1955(See Cahill v. Superior Court, 145 Cal. 42 [ 78 P. 467 ] ; Times-Mirror Co. v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.2d 309 [ 44 P.2d 547 ] ; Levy v. Superior Court, 15 Cal.2d 692 [ 104 P.2d 770 , 129 A.L.R. 956 ].) A dismissal of a proceeding or a denial of relief on the sole ground of lack of jurisdiction is not a decision on the merits. | 1 | 1955–1955 |
Cahill v. Superior Court of S.F.
green
2 sentences1955(See Cahill v. Superior Court, 145 Cal. 42 [ 78 P. 467 ] ; Times-Mirror Co. v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.2d 309 [ 44 P.2d 547 ] ; Levy v. Superior Court, 15 Cal.2d 692 [ 104 P.2d 770 , 129 A.L.R. 956 ].) A dismissal of a proceeding or a denial of relief on the sole ground of lack of jurisdiction is not a decision on the merits. 1955(See Cahill v. Superior Court, 145 Cal. 42 [ 78 P. 467 ] ; Times-Mirror Co. v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.2d 309 [ 44 P.2d 547 ] ; Levy v. Superior Court, 15 Cal.2d 692 [ 104 P.2d 770 , 129 A.L.R. 956 ].) A dismissal of a proceeding or a denial of relief on the sole ground of lack of jurisdiction is not a decision on the merits. | 1 | 1955–1955 |
Levy v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences1955(See Cahill v. Superior Court, 145 Cal. 42 [ 78 P. 467 ] ; Times-Mirror Co. v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.2d 309 [ 44 P.2d 547 ] ; Levy v. Superior Court, 15 Cal.2d 692 [ 104 P.2d 770 , 129 A.L.R. 956 ].) A dismissal of a proceeding or a denial of relief on the sole ground of lack of jurisdiction is not a decision on the merits. 1955(See Cahill v. Superior Court, 145 Cal. 42 [ 78 P. 467 ] ; Times-Mirror Co. v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.2d 309 [ 44 P.2d 547 ] ; Levy v. Superior Court, 15 Cal.2d 692 [ 104 P.2d 770 , 129 A.L.R. 956 ].) A dismissal of a proceeding or a denial of relief on the sole ground of lack of jurisdiction is not a decision on the merits. | 1 | 1955–1955 |
Irvine v. Gibson
green
2 sentences1950(Irvine v. Gibson, 19 Cal.2d 14 [ 118 P.2d 812 ]; People v. Olds (1853), 3 Cal. 167 [58 Am.Dec. 395].) The burden, of course, is on the petitioner to show that he did not have such a remedy. [2] An appeal is the usual course open to a litigant who believes that the trial court has committed error. 1950(Irvine v. Gibson, 19 Cal.2d 14 [ 118 P.2d 812 ]; People v. Olds (1853), 3 Cal. 167 [58 Am.Dec. 395].) The burden, of course, is on the petitioner to show that he did not have such a remedy. [2] An appeal is the usual course open to a litigant who believes that the trial court has committed error. | 1 | 1950–1950 |
People ex rel. Smith v. Olds
green
1 sentence1950(Irvine v. Gibson, 19 Cal.2d 14 [ 118 P.2d 812 ]; People v. Olds (1853), 3 Cal. 167 [58 Am.Dec. 395].) The burden, of course, is on the petitioner to show that he did not have such a remedy. [2] An appeal is the usual course open to a litigant who believes that the trial court has committed error. | 1 | 1950–1950 |
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.