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 1978–2023 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
American Academy of Pediatrics v. Van De Kampgreen2 sentences2023She is wrong, as the cases she cites involve violations of the First Amendment (Elrod v. Burns (1976) 427 U.S. 347, 373 ; accord, Loder, supra, 216 Cal.App.3d at p. 780 [“Nowhere did the Elrod court suggest that constitutional violations other than those offending the First Amendment automatically amount to irreparable injury”]), involve a factual showing of irreparable injury (Robbins v. Superior Court (1985) 38 Cal.3d 199, 213-218 ), or do not discuss the irreparable injury requirement at all (American Academy of Pediatrics v. Van de Kamp (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 831, 837-838 ; Long Beach City 2023She is wrong, as the cases she cites involve violations of the First Amendment (Elrod v. Burns (1976) 427 U.S. 347, 373 ; accord, Loder, supra, 216 Cal.App.3d at p. 780 [“Nowhere did the Elrod court suggest that constitutional violations other than those offending the First Amendment automatically amount to irreparable injury”]), involve a factual showing of irreparable injury (Robbins v. Superior Court (1985) 38 Cal.3d 199, 213-218 ), or do not discuss the irreparable injury requirement at all (American Academy of Pediatrics v. Van de Kamp (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 831, 837-838 ; Long Beach City | 2 | 2 |
Robbins v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2023She is wrong, as the cases she cites involve violations of the First Amendment (Elrod v. Burns (1976) 427 U.S. 347, 373 ; accord, Loder, supra, 216 Cal.App.3d at p. 780 [“Nowhere did the Elrod court suggest that constitutional violations other than those offending the First Amendment automatically amount to irreparable injury”]), involve a factual showing of irreparable injury (Robbins v. Superior Court (1985) 38 Cal.3d 199, 213-218 ), or do not discuss the irreparable injury requirement at all (American Academy of Pediatrics v. Van de Kamp (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 831, 837-838 ; Long Beach City 2023She is wrong, as the cases she cites involve violations of the First Amendment (Elrod v. Burns (1976) 427 U.S. 347, 373 ; accord, Loder, supra, 216 Cal.App.3d at p. 780 [“Nowhere did the Elrod court suggest that constitutional violations other than those offending the First Amendment automatically amount to irreparable injury”]), involve a factual showing of irreparable injury (Robbins v. Superior Court (1985) 38 Cal.3d 199, 213-218 ), or do not discuss the irreparable injury requirement at all (American Academy of Pediatrics v. Van de Kamp (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 831, 837-838 ; Long Beach City | 2 | 2 |
Long Beach City Employees Assn. v. City of Long Beachgreen2 sentences2023She is wrong, as the cases she cites involve violations of the First Amendment (Elrod v. Burns (1976) 427 U.S. 347, 373 ; accord, Loder, supra, 216 Cal.App.3d at p. 780 [“Nowhere did the Elrod court suggest that constitutional violations other than those offending the First Amendment automatically amount to irreparable injury”]), involve a factual showing of irreparable injury (Robbins v. Superior Court (1985) 38 Cal.3d 199, 213-218 ), or do not discuss the irreparable injury requirement at all (American Academy of Pediatrics v. Van de Kamp (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 831, 837-838 ; Long Beach City 2023She is wrong, as the cases she cites involve violations of the First Amendment (Elrod v. Burns (1976) 427 U.S. 347, 373 ; accord, Loder, supra, 216 Cal.App.3d at p. 780 [“Nowhere did the Elrod court suggest that constitutional violations other than those offending the First Amendment automatically amount to irreparable injury”]), involve a factual showing of irreparable injury (Robbins v. Superior Court (1985) 38 Cal.3d 199, 213-218 ), or do not discuss the irreparable injury requirement at all (American Academy of Pediatrics v. Van de Kamp (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 831, 837-838 ; Long Beach City | 2 | 2 |
Loder v. City of Glendalegreen2 sentences2023She is wrong, as the cases she cites involve violations of the First Amendment (Elrod v. Burns (1976) 427 U.S. 347, 373 ; accord, Loder, supra, 216 Cal.App.3d at p. 780 [“Nowhere did the Elrod court suggest that constitutional violations other than those offending the First Amendment automatically amount to irreparable injury”]), involve a factual showing of irreparable injury (Robbins v. Superior Court (1985) 38 Cal.3d 199, 213-218 ), or do not discuss the irreparable injury requirement at all (American Academy of Pediatrics v. Van de Kamp (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 831, 837-838 ; Long Beach City 2023She is wrong, as the cases she cites involve violations of the First Amendment (Elrod v. Burns (1976) 427 U.S. 347, 373 ; accord, Loder, supra, 216 Cal.App.3d at p. 780 [“Nowhere did the Elrod court suggest that constitutional violations other than those offending the First Amendment automatically amount to irreparable injury”]), involve a factual showing of irreparable injury (Robbins v. Superior Court (1985) 38 Cal.3d 199, 213-218 ), or do not discuss the irreparable injury requirement at all (American Academy of Pediatrics v. Van de Kamp (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 831, 837-838 ; Long Beach City | 2 | 2 |
National Private Truck Council, Inc. v. Oklahoma Tax Comm'ngreen2 sentences2000We conclude that plaintiffs do not fall within the irreparable injury exception found in footnote 6 of National Private Truck ( 515 U.S. at p. 591 [ 115 S.Ct. at p. 2357 ]). 2000We conclude that plaintiffs do not fall within the irreparable injury exception found in footnote 6 of National Private Truck ( 515 U.S. at p. 591 [ 115 S.Ct. at p. 2357 ]). | 1 | 1 |
Performance Unlimited, Inc. v. Questar Publishers, Inc.green1 sentence1997We agree with the Third Circuit that the requirement of preserving the status quo pending arbitration is not a separate jurisdictional test but is a “summary explanation of the need to protect the integrity of the applicable dispute resolution process.” (Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. v. Amgen, Inc. (3d Cir. 1989) 882 F.2d 806, 814 ; see also Performance Unlimited v. Questar Publishers, Inc., supra, 52 F.3d at p. 1381 [treating the issue under the irreparable injury inquiry]; Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith v. Bradley, supra, 756 F.2d at p. 1055 [district court, by finding that applicant fac | 1 | 1 |
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Kenneth Dale Bradley, Samuel L. Collinsgreen1 sentence1997We agree with the Third Circuit that the requirement of preserving the status quo pending arbitration is not a separate jurisdictional test but is a “summary explanation of the need to protect the integrity of the applicable dispute resolution process.” (Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. v. Amgen, Inc. (3d Cir. 1989) 882 F.2d 806, 814 ; see also Performance Unlimited v. Questar Publishers, Inc., supra, 52 F.3d at p. 1381 [treating the issue under the irreparable injury inquiry]; Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith v. Bradley, supra, 756 F.2d at p. 1055 [district court, by finding that applicant fac | 1 | 1 |
Sail'er Inn, Inc. v. Kirbygreen2 sentences1992(See, e.g., Sail’er Inn, Inc. v. Kirby (1971) 5 Cal.3d 1, 6-7 [ 95 Cal.Rptr. 329 , 485 P.2d 529 , 46 A.L.R.3d 351 ] [bar owners sought writ of mandate to prevent Alcoholic Beverages Commission from revoking their licenses because they hired women bartenders, contrary to Bus. & Prof. 1992(See, e.g., Sail’er Inn, Inc. v. Kirby (1971) 5 Cal.3d 1, 6-7 [ 95 Cal.Rptr. 329 , 485 P.2d 529 , 46 A.L.R.3d 351 ] [bar owners sought writ of mandate to prevent Alcoholic Beverages Commission from revoking their licenses because they hired women bartenders, contrary to Bus. & Prof. | 1 | 1 |
Wind v. Herbertgreen2 sentences1978(See cases cited ante, p. 1017.) The concept of irreparable injury has been carefully addressed in cases dealing with injunctive relief and the following definition, taken from that line of cases, is, I believe, applicable to a discussion of the exceptions to the exhaustion rule: “[Irreparable injury is] a wrong which, the trial judge no doubt deemed insufferable because it constitutes an overbearing assumption by one person of superiority and domination over the rights and property of others.” (Fretz v. Burke (1967) 247 Cal.App.2d 741, 746 [ 55 Cal.Rptr. 879 ]; cf. Anderson v. Souza (1952) 38 1978(See cases cited ante, p. 1017.) The concept of irreparable injury has been carefully addressed in cases dealing with injunctive relief and the following definition, taken from that line of cases, is, I believe, applicable to a discussion of the exceptions to the exhaustion rule: “[Irreparable injury is] a wrong which, the trial judge no doubt deemed insufferable because it constitutes an overbearing assumption by one person of superiority and domination over the rights and property of others.” (Fretz v. Burke (1967) 247 Cal.App.2d 741, 746 [ 55 Cal.Rptr. 879 ]; cf. Anderson v. Souza (1952) 38 | 1 | 1 |
Anderson v. Souzagreen2 sentences1978(See cases cited ante, p. 1017.) The concept of irreparable injury has been carefully addressed in cases dealing with injunctive relief and the following definition, taken from that line of cases, is, I believe, applicable to a discussion of the exceptions to the exhaustion rule: “[Irreparable injury is] a wrong which, the trial judge no doubt deemed insufferable because it constitutes an overbearing assumption by one person of superiority and domination over the rights and property of others.” (Fretz v. Burke (1967) 247 Cal.App.2d 741, 746 [ 55 Cal.Rptr. 879 ]; cf. Anderson v. Souza (1952) 38 1978(See cases cited ante, p. 1017.) The concept of irreparable injury has been carefully addressed in cases dealing with injunctive relief and the following definition, taken from that line of cases, is, I believe, applicable to a discussion of the exceptions to the exhaustion rule: “[Irreparable injury is] a wrong which, the trial judge no doubt deemed insufferable because it constitutes an overbearing assumption by one person of superiority and domination over the rights and property of others.” (Fretz v. Burke (1967) 247 Cal.App.2d 741, 746 [ 55 Cal.Rptr. 879 ]; cf. Anderson v. Souza (1952) 38 | 1 | 1 |
D'AMICO v. Board of Medical Examinersgreen2 sentences1978(D’Amico v. Board of Medical Examiners (1974) 11 Cal.3d 1, 19 [ 112 Cal.Rptr. 786 , 520 P.2d 10 ].) 5 Since it may be determined from the record in this case that the trial court made findings of fact to which the irreparable injury exception is applicable, I conclude that the court properly waived the requirement that respondents exhaust their administrative remedies and that the court had jurisdiction to grant respondents’ petition for writ of habeas corpus. 1978(D’Amico v. Board of Medical Examiners (1974) 11 Cal.3d 1, 19 [ 112 Cal.Rptr. 786 , 520 P.2d 10 ].) 5 Since it may be determined from the record in this case that the trial court made findings of fact to which the irreparable injury exception is applicable, I conclude that the court properly waived the requirement that respondents exhaust their administrative remedies and that the court had jurisdiction to grant respondents’ petition for writ of habeas corpus. | 1 | 1 |
Humbert v. Castro Valley County Fire Protection Districtgreen2 sentences1978Appellants’ reply brief cites Humbert v. Castro Valley County Fire Protection Dist. (1963) 214 Cal.App.2d 1, 6 [ 29 Cal.Rptr. 158 ], for the proposition that the irreparable injury exception applies “only to cases ‘dealing with rate orders of regulatory commissions, where the administrative body imposes a confiscatory rate on a public utility.’ ” This argument is unpersuasive. 1978Appellants’ reply brief cites Humbert v. Castro Valley County Fire Protection Dist. (1963) 214 Cal.App.2d 1, 6 [ 29 Cal.Rptr. 158 ], for the proposition that the irreparable injury exception applies “only to cases ‘dealing with rate orders of regulatory commissions, where the administrative body imposes a confiscatory rate on a public utility.’ ” This argument is unpersuasive. | 1 | 1 |
Fretz v. Burkegreen2 sentences1978(See cases cited ante, p. 1017.) The concept of irreparable injury has been carefully addressed in cases dealing with injunctive relief and the following definition, taken from that line of cases, is, I believe, applicable to a discussion of the exceptions to the exhaustion rule: “[Irreparable injury is] a wrong which, the trial judge no doubt deemed insufferable because it constitutes an overbearing assumption by one person of superiority and domination over the rights and property of others.” (Fretz v. Burke (1967) 247 Cal.App.2d 741, 746 [ 55 Cal.Rptr. 879 ]; cf. Anderson v. Souza (1952) 38 1978(See cases cited ante, p. 1017.) The concept of irreparable injury has been carefully addressed in cases dealing with injunctive relief and the following definition, taken from that line of cases, is, I believe, applicable to a discussion of the exceptions to the exhaustion rule: “[Irreparable injury is] a wrong which, the trial judge no doubt deemed insufferable because it constitutes an overbearing assumption by one person of superiority and domination over the rights and property of others.” (Fretz v. Burke (1967) 247 Cal.App.2d 741, 746 [ 55 Cal.Rptr. 879 ]; cf. Anderson v. Souza (1952) 38 | 1 | 1 |
Gray v. Graygreen2 sentences1978Nevertheless, where findings are not made by the lower court, it must be presumed that that court made all findings necessary to support its judgment. ( Gray v. Gray (1921) 185 Cal. 598, 599 [ 197 P. 945 ].) Moreover, a lower court's decision will be upheld if it is valid under any applicable theory of law, regardless of the actual reason (or, as in this case, the lack thereof) for that decision. ( D'Amico v. Board of Medical Examiners (1974) 11 Cal.3d 1, 19 [ 112 Cal. Rptr. 786 , 520 P.2d 10 ].) [5] Since it may be determined from the record in this case that the trial court made findings of 1978Nevertheless, where findings are not made by the lower court, it must be presumed that that court made all findings necessary to support its judgment. ( Gray v. Gray (1921) 185 Cal. 598, 599 [ 197 P. 945 ].) Moreover, a lower court's decision will be upheld if it is valid under any applicable theory of law, regardless of the actual reason (or, as in this case, the lack thereof) for that decision. ( D'Amico v. Board of Medical Examiners (1974) 11 Cal.3d 1, 19 [ 112 Cal. Rptr. 786 , 520 P.2d 10 ].) [5] Since it may be determined from the record in this case that the trial court made findings of | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Elrod v. Burns
green
2 sentences2023She is wrong, as the cases she cites involve violations of the First Amendment (Elrod v. Burns (1976) 427 U.S. 347, 373 ; accord, Loder, supra, 216 Cal.App.3d at p. 780 [“Nowhere did the Elrod court suggest that constitutional violations other than those offending the First Amendment automatically amount to irreparable injury”]), involve a factual showing of irreparable injury (Robbins v. Superior Court (1985) 38 Cal.3d 199, 213-218 ), or do not discuss the irreparable injury requirement at all (American Academy of Pediatrics v. Van de Kamp (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 831, 837-838 ; Long Beach City 2023She is wrong, as the cases she cites involve violations of the First Amendment (Elrod v. Burns (1976) 427 U.S. 347, 373 ; accord, Loder, supra, 216 Cal.App.3d at p. 780 [“Nowhere did the Elrod court suggest that constitutional violations other than those offending the First Amendment automatically amount to irreparable injury”]), involve a factual showing of irreparable injury (Robbins v. Superior Court (1985) 38 Cal.3d 199, 213-218 ), or do not discuss the irreparable injury requirement at all (American Academy of Pediatrics v. Van de Kamp (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 831, 837-838 ; Long Beach City | 2 | 2023–2023 |
Ortho Pharmaceutical Corporation v. Amgen, Inc.
green
2 sentences1997We agree with the Third Circuit that the requirement of preserving the status quo pending arbitration is not a separate jurisdictional test but is a “summary explanation of the need to protect the integrity of the applicable dispute resolution process.” (Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. v. Amgen, Inc. (3d Cir. 1989) 882 F.2d 806, 814 ; see also Performance Unlimited v. Questar Publishers, Inc., supra, 52 F.3d at p. 1381 [treating the issue under the irreparable injury inquiry]; Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith v. Bradley, supra, 756 F.2d at p. 1055 [district court, by finding that applicant fac 1997If the existing ‘status quo’ is currently causing one of the parties irreparable injury and thereby threatens to nullify the arbitration process, then it is necessary to alter the situation to prevent the injury.” (Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., supra, 882 F.2d at p. 814 , italics added.) Thus, under both California law and the FAA, the trial court has authority to grant injunctive relief pending contractual arbitration, but only if it is necessary to preserve the effectiveness of arbitration. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal
green
2 sentences1992Continued operation of the business at the rate imposed pending an appeal may in some instances be so unprofitable as to amount to a destruction of the business, and therefore a taking of property without due process of law.” (Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal, supra, 17 Cal.2d at p. 296 .) The irreparable injury exception has been rarely applied. 1992Continued operation of the business at the rate imposed pending an appeal may in some instances be so unprofitable as to amount to a destruction of the business, and therefore a taking of property without due process of law.” (Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal, supra, 17 Cal.2d at p. 296 .) The irreparable injury exception has been rarely applied. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Ogo Associates v. City of Torrance
green
2 sentences1978The appellants next contend that it would be futile for them to pursue any administrative remedy under the subject ordinance, citing Ogo Associate's v. City of Torrance (1974) 37 Cal.App.3d 830 [ 112 Cal.Rptr. 761 ]. 1978The appellants next contend that it would be futile for them to pursue any administrative remedy under the subject ordinance, citing Ogo Associate's v. City of Torrance (1974) 37 Cal.App.3d 830 [ 112 Cal.Rptr. 761 ]. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
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.