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 1964–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re: Russell Schwartz Linda Schwartz, Debtors. Russell Schwartz Linda Schwartz v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2014(See Schwartz v. United States (9th Cir. 1992) 954 F.2d 569, 572 [‘section 362(d) gives the bankruptcy court wide latitude in crafting relief from the automatic stay, including the power to grant retroactive relief from the stay’].) O’Reilly cites In re Schwartz as authority that acts in violation of the stay are void, not merely voidable, in support of his argument that the bankruptcy court could not ‘revive’ a void judgment obtained in violation of the automatic stay. 2014(See Schwartz v. United States (9th Cir. 1992) 954 F.2d 569, 572 [‘section 362(d) gives the bankruptcy court wide latitude in crafting relief from the automatic stay, including the power to grant retroactive relief from the stay’].) O’Reilly cites In re Schwartz as authority that acts in violation of the stay are void, not merely voidable, in support of his argument that the bankruptcy court could not ‘revive’ a void judgment obtained in violation of the automatic stay. | 2 | 2 |
Thomas v. Department of Motor Vehiclesgreen2 sentences1975At any time after the time for appeal has run, the defendant may file a motion to vacate the judgment (or to set aside a plea of guilty) in the trial court which rendered the original judgment of conviction of driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor since a trial court has no jurisdiction to render a judgment obtained in violation of a person’s constitutional rights (Thomas v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1970) 3 Cal.3d 335, 338 [ 90 Cal.Rptr. 586 , 475 P.2d 858 ]; Gonzalez v. Municipal Court (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 706, 710 [ 108 Cal.Rptr. 612 ]). 1975At any time after the time for appeal has run, the defendant may file a motion to vacate the judgment (or to set aside a plea of guilty) in the trial court which rendered the original judgment of conviction of driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor since a trial court has no jurisdiction to render a judgment obtained in violation of a person’s constitutional rights (Thomas v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1970) 3 Cal.3d 335, 338 [ 90 Cal.Rptr. 586 , 475 P.2d 858 ]; Gonzalez v. Municipal Court (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 706, 710 [ 108 Cal.Rptr. 612 ]). | 1 | 1 |
Gonzalez v. Municipal Courtgreen2 sentences1975At any time after the time for appeal has run, the defendant may file a motion to vacate the judgment (or to set aside a plea of guilty) in the trial court which rendered the original judgment of conviction of driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor since a trial court has no jurisdiction to render a judgment obtained in violation of a person’s constitutional rights (Thomas v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1970) 3 Cal.3d 335, 338 [ 90 Cal.Rptr. 586 , 475 P.2d 858 ]; Gonzalez v. Municipal Court (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 706, 710 [ 108 Cal.Rptr. 612 ]). 1975At any time after the time for appeal has run, the defendant may file a motion to vacate the judgment (or to set aside a plea of guilty) in the trial court which rendered the original judgment of conviction of driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor since a trial court has no jurisdiction to render a judgment obtained in violation of a person’s constitutional rights (Thomas v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1970) 3 Cal.3d 335, 338 [ 90 Cal.Rptr. 586 , 475 P.2d 858 ]; Gonzalez v. Municipal Court (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 706, 710 [ 108 Cal.Rptr. 612 ]). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re Winchester
green
2 sentences1979We have concluded that the factual circumstances bring this case within the principle stated in In re Winchester (1960) 53 Cal.2d 528 [ 2 Cal.Rptr. 296 , 348 P.2d 904 ], that “Habeas corpus has become a proper remedy in this state to collaterally attack a judgment of conviction which has been obtained in violation of fundamental constitutional rights.” (Id., at p. 531.) Although petitioner has been convicted of no crime, she is no less entitled to the protection of her fundamental constitutional rights, and a judgment obtained in violation of those rights is similarly vulnerable to collateral 1979We have concluded that the factual circumstances bring this case within the principle stated in In re Winchester (1960) 53 Cal.2d 528 [ 2 Cal.Rptr. 296 , 348 P.2d 904 ], that “Habeas corpus has become a proper remedy in this state to collaterally attack a judgment of conviction which has been obtained in violation of fundamental constitutional rights.” (Id., at p. 531.) Although petitioner has been convicted of no crime, she is no less entitled to the protection of her fundamental constitutional rights, and a judgment obtained in violation of those rights is similarly vulnerable to collateral | 2 | 1964–1979 |
Griffin v. Griffin
green
1 sentence2025(Mathews v. Eldridge (1976) 424 U.S. 319, 348 ; LCPFV, LLC v. Somatdary Inc. (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 743 , 758.) “A judgment obtained in violation of procedural due process is not entitled to full faith and credit when sued upon in another jurisdiction.” (Griffin v. Griffin (1946) 327 U.S. 220, 228 .) Rota complains she did not get a fair trial and was denied due process because she could not attend the proceedings in person and was not allowed to contest HMS’s claim for defamation or to file documents. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Mathews v. Eldridge
green
1 sentence2025(Mathews v. Eldridge (1976) 424 U.S. 319, 348 ; LCPFV, LLC v. Somatdary Inc. (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 743 , 758.) “A judgment obtained in violation of procedural due process is not entitled to full faith and credit when sued upon in another jurisdiction.” (Griffin v. Griffin (1946) 327 U.S. 220, 228 .) Rota complains she did not get a fair trial and was denied due process because she could not attend the proceedings in person and was not allowed to contest HMS’s claim for defamation or to file documents. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Allen v. Allen
green
1 sentence1981The court reasoned that since a judgment obtained in violation of the act is not void, but voidable upon a showing of prejudice by the serviceman ( Allen, supra, 30 Cal. 2d 433 ), the court at the hearing of June 12, 1978, must have determined Rosendo was not prejudiced by his absence; that the letter written to Dona’s attorney prior to the hearing of June 12, 1978, and submitted to the court by Dona’s attorney was a sufficient response by Rosendo for the court to conclude the ability of Rosendo to protect his interests was not materially affected by reason of his military service. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
In re Winchester
neutral
1 sentence1964(In re Winchester (1960) 53 Cal.2d 528 [ 2 Cal.Rptr. 296 , 348 P.2d 904 ], cert. den. (1960) 363 U.S. 852 [ 80 S.Ct. 1631 , 4 L.Ed.2d 1734 ].) Right to counsel is a fundamental right guaranteed both by the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California. | 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.