matters defense in California

7 California opinions name it 2 courts 1914–2013 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.

Followed or applied (3)

Case	Followed	Cited
Berkemer v. McCartygreen scotus · 1984 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013 2 sentences 2013Under Miranda, ―the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination.‖ ( 384 U.S. at p. 444 .) ―Miranda become[s] applicable as soon as a suspect‘s freedom of action is curtailed to a ‗degree associated with formal arrest.‘ [Citation.]‖ (Berkemer v. McCarty (1984) 468 U.S. 420, 440 [ 104 S.Ct. 3138 , 82 L.Ed.2d 317 ].) But, ―‗[a]bsent ―custodial interrogation,‖ Miranda simply does not come into play.‘ 2013Under Miranda, ―the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination.‖ ( 384 U.S. at p. 444 .) ―Miranda become[s] applicable as soon as a suspect‘s freedom of action is curtailed to a ‗degree associated with formal arrest.‘ [Citation.]‖ (Berkemer v. McCarty (1984) 468 U.S. 420, 440 [ 104 S.Ct. 3138 , 82 L.Ed.2d 317 ].) But, ―‗[a]bsent ―custodial interrogation,‖ Miranda simply does not come into play.‘	1	1
Maddux v. Walthallgreen · 1903 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001 2 sentences 2001The only matters of inquiry for the court are those prescribed in subdivisions 1, 2, 3, and 4 of [former] section 1111 of the Code of Civil Procedure . . . .” (Maddux v. Walthall (1903) 141 Cal. 412, 415 [ 74 P. 1026 ].) Plaintiffs have not offered any basis for a conclusion that the Legislature intended to change that limitation on election contests and the court’s authority to set aside an election when the Elections Code was enacted in 1939 or in any subsequent amendment of that code. 2001The only matters of inquiry for the court are those prescribed in subdivisions 1, 2, 3, and 4 of [former] section 1111 of the Code of Civil Procedure . . . .” (Maddux v. Walthall (1903) 141 Cal. 412, 415 [ 74 P. 1026 ].) Plaintiffs have not offered any basis for a conclusion that the Legislature intended to change that limitation on election contests and the court’s authority to set aside an election when the Elections Code was enacted in 1939 or in any subsequent amendment of that code.	1	1
Trozera v. McDonellgreen calctapp · 1933 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1962–1962 2 sentences 1962(Trozera v. McDonell, 131 Cal.App. 473, 475 [ 21 P.2d 706 ].) The basic consideration is whether the matters of defense are responsive to the essential allegations of the complaint, i.e., whether they are contradicting elements of plaintiff’s cause of action or whether they tender a new issue, in which case the burden of proof is upon the defendant as to the allegation constituting such new matter. 1962(Trozera v. McDonell, 131 Cal.App. 473, 475 [ 21 P.2d 706 ].) The basic consideration is whether the matters of defense are responsive to the essential allegations of the complaint, i.e., whether they are contradicting elements of plaintiff’s cause of action or whether they tender a new issue, in which case the burden of proof is upon the defendant as to the allegation constituting such new matter.	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (15)

Case	Cited	Years
Wilcox v. Wilcox green cal · 1916 2 sentences 1939(See, also, Estate of Hughson, 173 Cal. 448 [ 160 Pac. 548 ] ; Wilcox v. Wilcox, 171 Cal. 770 [ 155 Pac. 95 ]; Immel v. Dowd, 6 Cal. App. (2d) 145 [ 44 Pac. (2d) 373 ]; Luckett v. La Tour, 122 Cal. App. 271 [ 9 Pac. (2d) 886 ] ; Marsh v. Marsh, 79 Cal. App. 560 [ 250 Pac. 411 ] ; Hamburgh v. Hys, 22 Cal. App. (2d) 508 [ 71 Pac. (2d) 301 ]; 34 A. L. 1916This subject has been so recently and so thoroughly discussed in the opinion of this court written by Mr. Chief Justice Angellotti, in the ease of Wilcox v. Wilcox, 171 Cal. 770, [ 155 Pac. 95 ], that we need not devote any further space to it.	2	1916–1939
Miranda v. Arizona green scotus · 1966 1 sentence 2013Under Miranda, ―the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination.‖ ( 384 U.S. at p. 444 .) ―Miranda become[s] applicable as soon as a suspect‘s freedom of action is curtailed to a ‗degree associated with formal arrest.‘ [Citation.]‖ (Berkemer v. McCarty (1984) 468 U.S. 420, 440 [ 104 S.Ct. 3138 , 82 L.Ed.2d 317 ].) But, ―‗[a]bsent ―custodial interrogation,‖ Miranda simply does not come into play.‘	1	2013–2013
People v. Ochoa green cal · 1999 1 sentence 2013Under Miranda, ―the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination.‖ ( 384 U.S. at p. 444 .) ―Miranda become[s] applicable as soon as a suspect‘s freedom of action is curtailed to a ‗degree associated with formal arrest.‘ [Citation.]‖ (Berkemer v. McCarty (1984) 468 U.S. 420, 440 [ 104 S.Ct. 3138 , 82 L.Ed.2d 317 ].) But, ―‗[a]bsent ―custodial interrogation,‖ Miranda simply does not come into play.‘	1	2013–2013
Rancho Santa Margarita v. Vail green cal · 1938 2 sentences 1962(Rancho Santa Margarita v. Vail, 11 Cal.2d 501 [ 81 P.2d 533 ].) The distinction is well stated by the leading case of Frisch v. Caler (1862) 21 Cal. 71 , as follows: “Whether matter is new or not, must be determined by the matter itself, and not by the form in which it is pleaded—the test being whether it operates as a traverse or by way of confession and avoidance. 1962(Rancho Santa Margarita v. Vail, 11 Cal.2d 501 [ 81 P.2d 533 ].) The distinction is well stated by the leading case of Frisch v. Caler (1862) 21 Cal. 71 , as follows: “Whether matter is new or not, must be determined by the matter itself, and not by the form in which it is pleaded—the test being whether it operates as a traverse or by way of confession and avoidance.	1	1962–1962
Frisch v. Caler green cal · 1862 1 sentence 1962(Rancho Santa Margarita v. Vail, 11 Cal.2d 501 [ 81 P.2d 533 ].) The distinction is well stated by the leading case of Frisch v. Caler (1862) 21 Cal. 71 , as follows: “Whether matter is new or not, must be determined by the matter itself, and not by the form in which it is pleaded—the test being whether it operates as a traverse or by way of confession and avoidance.	1	1962–1962
Theobald v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. neutral illappct · 1898 1 sentence 1959Co., 75 Ill.App. 208.—McGuire v. Iowa County, 111 N.W. 34 , 133 Iowa 636 .” Since the jurat here involved does not contain a statement that the matters stated in the claim are true and it is not made a part of an affidavit, it follows that it is not sufficient to meet the requirements of Government Code, section 53052.	1	1959–1959
McGuire v. Iowa County neutral iowa · 1907 2 sentences 1959Co., 75 Ill.App. 208.—McGuire v. Iowa County, 111 N.W. 34 , 133 Iowa 636 .” Since the jurat here involved does not contain a statement that the matters stated in the claim are true and it is not made a part of an affidavit, it follows that it is not sufficient to meet the requirements of Government Code, section 53052. 1959Co., 75 Ill.App. 208.—McGuire v. Iowa County, 111 N.W. 34 , 133 Iowa 636 .” Since the jurat here involved does not contain a statement that the matters stated in the claim are true and it is not made a part of an affidavit, it follows that it is not sufficient to meet the requirements of Government Code, section 53052.	1	1959–1959
Hamburgh v. Hys green calctapp · 1937 1 sentence 1939(See, also, Estate of Hughson, 173 Cal. 448 [ 160 Pac. 548 ] ; Wilcox v. Wilcox, 171 Cal. 770 [ 155 Pac. 95 ]; Immel v. Dowd, 6 Cal. App. (2d) 145 [ 44 Pac. (2d) 373 ]; Luckett v. La Tour, 122 Cal. App. 271 [ 9 Pac. (2d) 886 ] ; Marsh v. Marsh, 79 Cal. App. 560 [ 250 Pac. 411 ] ; Hamburgh v. Hys, 22 Cal. App. (2d) 508 [ 71 Pac. (2d) 301 ]; 34 A. L.	1	1939–1939
Immel v. Dowd green calctapp · 1935 1 sentence 1939(See, also, Estate of Hughson, 173 Cal. 448 [ 160 Pac. 548 ] ; Wilcox v. Wilcox, 171 Cal. 770 [ 155 Pac. 95 ]; Immel v. Dowd, 6 Cal. App. (2d) 145 [ 44 Pac. (2d) 373 ]; Luckett v. La Tour, 122 Cal. App. 271 [ 9 Pac. (2d) 886 ] ; Marsh v. Marsh, 79 Cal. App. 560 [ 250 Pac. 411 ] ; Hamburgh v. Hys, 22 Cal. App. (2d) 508 [ 71 Pac. (2d) 301 ]; 34 A. L.	1	1939–1939
Marsh v. Van Allen Marsh green calctapp · 1926 2 sentences 1939(See, also, Estate of Hughson, 173 Cal. 448 [ 160 Pac. 548 ] ; Wilcox v. Wilcox, 171 Cal. 770 [ 155 Pac. 95 ]; Immel v. Dowd, 6 Cal. App. (2d) 145 [ 44 Pac. (2d) 373 ]; Luckett v. La Tour, 122 Cal. App. 271 [ 9 Pac. (2d) 886 ] ; Marsh v. Marsh, 79 Cal. App. 560 [ 250 Pac. 411 ] ; Hamburgh v. Hys, 22 Cal. App. (2d) 508 [ 71 Pac. (2d) 301 ]; 34 A. L. 1939(See, also, Estate of Hughson, 173 Cal. 448 [ 160 Pac. 548 ] ; Wilcox v. Wilcox, 171 Cal. 770 [ 155 Pac. 95 ]; Immel v. Dowd, 6 Cal. App. (2d) 145 [ 44 Pac. (2d) 373 ]; Luckett v. La Tour, 122 Cal. App. 271 [ 9 Pac. (2d) 886 ] ; Marsh v. Marsh, 79 Cal. App. 560 [ 250 Pac. 411 ] ; Hamburgh v. Hys, 22 Cal. App. (2d) 508 [ 71 Pac. (2d) 301 ]; 34 A. L.	1	1939–1939
Luckett v. La Tour green calctapp · 1932 2 sentences 1939(See, also, Estate of Hughson, 173 Cal. 448 [ 160 Pac. 548 ] ; Wilcox v. Wilcox, 171 Cal. 770 [ 155 Pac. 95 ]; Immel v. Dowd, 6 Cal. App. (2d) 145 [ 44 Pac. (2d) 373 ]; Luckett v. La Tour, 122 Cal. App. 271 [ 9 Pac. (2d) 886 ] ; Marsh v. Marsh, 79 Cal. App. 560 [ 250 Pac. 411 ] ; Hamburgh v. Hys, 22 Cal. App. (2d) 508 [ 71 Pac. (2d) 301 ]; 34 A. L. 1939(See, also, Estate of Hughson, 173 Cal. 448 [ 160 Pac. 548 ] ; Wilcox v. Wilcox, 171 Cal. 770 [ 155 Pac. 95 ]; Immel v. Dowd, 6 Cal. App. (2d) 145 [ 44 Pac. (2d) 373 ]; Luckett v. La Tour, 122 Cal. App. 271 [ 9 Pac. (2d) 886 ] ; Marsh v. Marsh, 79 Cal. App. 560 [ 250 Pac. 411 ] ; Hamburgh v. Hys, 22 Cal. App. (2d) 508 [ 71 Pac. (2d) 301 ]; 34 A. L.	1	1939–1939
Brigham v. Hughson green cal · 1916 2 sentences 1939(See, also, Estate of Hughson, 173 Cal. 448 [ 160 Pac. 548 ] ; Wilcox v. Wilcox, 171 Cal. 770 [ 155 Pac. 95 ]; Immel v. Dowd, 6 Cal. App. (2d) 145 [ 44 Pac. (2d) 373 ]; Luckett v. La Tour, 122 Cal. App. 271 [ 9 Pac. (2d) 886 ] ; Marsh v. Marsh, 79 Cal. App. 560 [ 250 Pac. 411 ] ; Hamburgh v. Hys, 22 Cal. App. (2d) 508 [ 71 Pac. (2d) 301 ]; 34 A. L. 1939(See, also, Estate of Hughson, 173 Cal. 448 [ 160 Pac. 548 ] ; Wilcox v. Wilcox, 171 Cal. 770 [ 155 Pac. 95 ]; Immel v. Dowd, 6 Cal. App. (2d) 145 [ 44 Pac. (2d) 373 ]; Luckett v. La Tour, 122 Cal. App. 271 [ 9 Pac. (2d) 886 ] ; Marsh v. Marsh, 79 Cal. App. 560 [ 250 Pac. 411 ] ; Hamburgh v. Hys, 22 Cal. App. (2d) 508 [ 71 Pac. (2d) 301 ]; 34 A. L.	1	1939–1939
Nickerson v. California Raisin Co. neutral cal · 1882 1 sentence 1914(Nickerson v. California Raisin Co., 61 Cal. 268 ; Palmer & Ray v. Barclay, 92 Cal. 199 , [ 28 Pac. 226 ].) While the amended affidavit which was filed repeats the language of the original affidavit just referred to, nevertheless it is not, we think subject to the objection that it does not appear therefrom that they are advised by their counsel that they have a meritorious defense based upon his knowledge of all the facts of the case.	1	1914–1914
Rey v. Barclay green cal · 1891 2 sentences 1914(Nickerson v. California Raisin Co., 61 Cal. 268 ; Palmer & Ray v. Barclay, 92 Cal. 199 , [ 28 Pac. 226 ].) While the amended affidavit which was filed repeats the language of the original affidavit just referred to, nevertheless it is not, we think subject to the objection that it does not appear therefrom that they are advised by their counsel that they have a meritorious defense based upon his knowledge of all the facts of the case. 1914(Nickerson v. California Raisin Co., 61 Cal. 268 ; Palmer & Ray v. Barclay, 92 Cal. 199 , [ 28 Pac. 226 ].) While the amended affidavit which was filed repeats the language of the original affidavit just referred to, nevertheless it is not, we think subject to the objection that it does not appear therefrom that they are advised by their counsel that they have a meritorious defense based upon his knowledge of all the facts of the case.	1	1914–1914
Bohn v. Bohn green cal · 1913 2 sentences 1914(Bohn v. Bohn, 164 Cal. 532 -538, [ 129 Pac. 981 ].) The original affidavit of merits was defective in that it averred that the defendants had fully and fairly stated the matters of defense to the cause of action alleged by plaintiffs to their attorney, and that said attorney had advised them that they had a good and legal defense on the merits to the cause of action set forth in the complaint. 1914(Bohn v. Bohn, 164 Cal. 532 -538, [ 129 Pac. 981 ].) The original affidavit of merits was defective in that it averred that the defendants had fully and fairly stated the matters of defense to the cause of action alleged by plaintiffs to their attorney, and that said attorney had advised them that they had a good and legal defense on the merits to the cause of action set forth in the complaint.	1	1914–1914

Where else courts name it

MO 21 (1868–1991) TX 15 (1874–2016) NY 11 (1891–2000) IL 10 (1917–2020) AL 10 (1897–1972) CA 7 (1914–2013) GA 7 (1911–2001) WV 5 (1878–1989) PA 5 (1899–1939) AZ 5 (1977–2018) IA 4 (1928–1995) OR 4 (1902–1959) MA 3 (1980–2000) ND 2 (1925–1995) CO 2 (1882–1977) KS 2 (1952–1980) AR 2 (1927–1935) FL 2 (1898–1930) NC 2 (1879–1883) MI 2 (2019–2022) MS 2 (1969–1995) OH 2 (2005–2014) OK 2 (1914–1961)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check