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 1945–2014 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Bateman v. Colgangreen2 sentences1986(See Bateman v. Colgan (1896) 111 Cal. 580, 587-588 [ 44 P. 238 ].) We conclude that the Governor had the power both to establish the task force, and to finance it from the appropriation for his office. (5d) It necessarily follows, we believe, that when the Governor became aware that the task force had been financed from improper sources, depleting funds appropriated for other purposes, he had the power to correct the error and reimburse the injured departments from the budget of his office. 1986(See Bateman v. Colgan (1896) 111 Cal. 580, 587-588 [ 44 P. 238 ].) We conclude that the Governor had the power both to establish the task force, and to finance it from the appropriation for his office. (5d) It necessarily follows, we believe, that when the Governor became aware that the task force had been financed from improper sources, depleting funds appropriated for other purposes, he had the power to correct the error and reimburse the injured departments from the budget of his office. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Thomasgreen2 sentences1978(People v. Thomas (1976) 65 Cal.App.3d 854, 858 [ 135 Cal.Rptr. 644 ].) While this reviewing court has the power to correct this error, which appears to be a clerical error because the oral pronouncement of the sentence simply directed that the appellant be committed to the state prison system for the term prescribed by law, the issue is moot, as we reverse the judgment of conviction. . 7 We find the failure to permit cross-examination of the minor and his mother, Mrs. O., was reversible error. 8 Appellant bases this contention on an alleged violation of article I, section 15, of the Californi 1978(People v. Thomas (1976) 65 Cal.App.3d 854, 858 [ 135 Cal.Rptr. 644 ].) While this reviewing court has the power to correct this error, which appears to be a clerical error because the oral pronouncement of the sentence simply directed that the appellant be committed to the state prison system for the term prescribed by law, the issue is moot, as we reverse the judgment of conviction. . 7 We find the failure to permit cross-examination of the minor and his mother, Mrs. O., was reversible error. 8 Appellant bases this contention on an alleged violation of article I, section 15, of the Californi | 1 | 1 |
Sjoberg v. Hastorfgreen2 sentences1969Nor does it seem proper to allow an appeal from the entire judgment, in disregard of the long-established rule that an appeal does not lie from an interlocutory judgment in a partnership accounting action. (10) It is settled law that a party may appeal from part of a severable judgment. (3 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (1954) p. 2186.) Accordingly, no violence would be done to our appellate practice by allowing such a partial appeal here. (11) And despite the "one final judgment rule," it is established that an interlocutory judgment, not expressly made appealable by statute, is nevertheless appealab 1969Nor does it seem proper to allow an appeal from the entire judgment, in disregard of the long-established rule that an appeal does not lie from an interlocutory judgment in a partnership accounting action. (10) It is settled law that a party may appeal from part of a severable judgment. (3 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (1954) p. 2186.) Accordingly, no violence would be done to our appellate practice by allowing such a partial appeal here. (11) And despite the "one final judgment rule," it is established that an interlocutory judgment, not expressly made appealable by statute, is nevertheless appealab | 1 | 1 |
Greene v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1969Nor does it seem proper to allow an appeal from the entire judgment, in disregard of the long-established rule that an appeal does not lie from an interlocutory judgment in a partnership accounting action. (10) It is settled law that a party may appeal from part of a severable judgment. (3 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (1954) p. 2186.) Accordingly, no violence would be done to our appellate practice by allowing such a partial appeal here. (11) And despite the "one final judgment rule," it is established that an interlocutory judgment, not expressly made appealable by statute, is nevertheless appealab 1969Nor does it seem proper to allow an appeal from the entire judgment, in disregard of the long-established rule that an appeal does not lie from an interlocutory judgment in a partnership accounting action. (10) It is settled law that a party may appeal from part of a severable judgment. (3 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (1954) p. 2186.) Accordingly, no violence would be done to our appellate practice by allowing such a partial appeal here. (11) And despite the "one final judgment rule," it is established that an interlocutory judgment, not expressly made appealable by statute, is nevertheless appealab | 1 | 1 |
Davis v. Rudolphgreen2 sentences1954See also Davis v. Rudolph, 80 Cal.App.2d 397 [ 181 P.2d 765 ]; Martin v. Ray, 74 Cal.App.2d 922 [ 170 P.2d 75 ]; Estate of Layton, 217 Cal. 451 [ 19 P.2d 793 , 91 A.L.R. 480 ]; and People v. Ward, 141 Cal. 628 [ 75 P. 306 ]. 1954See also Davis v. Rudolph, 80 Cal.App.2d 397 [ 181 P.2d 765 ]; Martin v. Ray, 74 Cal.App.2d 922 [ 170 P.2d 75 ]; Estate of Layton, 217 Cal. 451 [ 19 P.2d 793 , 91 A.L.R. 480 ]; and People v. Ward, 141 Cal. 628 [ 75 P. 306 ]. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Harman v. Cabaniss
neutral
2 sentences1946It also said, page 717, that as to such clerical errors, when same are apparent upon the face of the record, no time limit exists as far as the right to make the correction is concerned, and that the trial court has full power to determine whether the error was clerical or judicial in character, citing Harman v. Cabaniss, 207 Cal. 60 [ 276 P. 569 ]. 1946It also said, page 717, that as to such clerical errors, when same are apparent upon the face of the record, no time limit exists as far as the right to make the correction is concerned, and that the trial court has full power to determine whether the error was clerical or judicial in character, citing Harman v. Cabaniss, 207 Cal. 60 [ 276 P. 569 ]. | 2 | 1945–1946 |
People v. Jones
green
1 sentence2014(People v. Jones (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1, 89 .) The abstract must be amended to correct the error. 31 DISPOSITION The judgments are affirmed. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Davis v. Alaska
green
2 sentences1978(People v. Thomas (1976) 65 Cal.App.3d 854, 858 [ 135 Cal.Rptr. 644 ].) While this reviewing court has the power to correct this error, which appears to be a clerical error because the oral pronouncement of the sentence simply directed that the appellant be committed to the state prison system for the term prescribed by law, the issue is moot, as we reverse the judgment of conviction. . 7 We find the failure to permit cross-examination of the minor and his mother, Mrs. O., was reversible error. 8 Appellant bases this contention on an alleged violation of article I, section 15, of the Californi 1978(People v. Thomas (1976) 65 Cal.App.3d 854, 858 [ 135 Cal.Rptr. 644 ].) While this reviewing court has the power to correct this error, which appears to be a clerical error because the oral pronouncement of the sentence simply directed that the appellant be committed to the state prison system for the term prescribed by law, the issue is moot, as we reverse the judgment of conviction. . 7 We find the failure to permit cross-examination of the minor and his mother, Mrs. O., was reversible error. 8 Appellant bases this contention on an alleged violation of article I, section 15, of the Californi | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Estate of Goldberg
green
2 sentences1954In Estate of Goldberg, 10 Cal.2d 709 [ 76 P.2d 508 ], it was held that when, on the face of the record, it appears that a clerical error has been committed and carried into the judgment or decree the court has the authority and the power to correct such error. 1954In Estate of Goldberg, 10 Cal.2d 709 [ 76 P.2d 508 ], it was held that when, on the face of the record, it appears that a clerical error has been committed and carried into the judgment or decree the court has the authority and the power to correct such error. | 1 | 1954–1954 |
Martin v. Ray
green
2 sentences1954See also Davis v. Rudolph, 80 Cal.App.2d 397 [ 181 P.2d 765 ]; Martin v. Ray, 74 Cal.App.2d 922 [ 170 P.2d 75 ]; Estate of Layton, 217 Cal. 451 [ 19 P.2d 793 , 91 A.L.R. 480 ]; and People v. Ward, 141 Cal. 628 [ 75 P. 306 ]. 1954See also Davis v. Rudolph, 80 Cal.App.2d 397 [ 181 P.2d 765 ]; Martin v. Ray, 74 Cal.App.2d 922 [ 170 P.2d 75 ]; Estate of Layton, 217 Cal. 451 [ 19 P.2d 793 , 91 A.L.R. 480 ]; and People v. Ward, 141 Cal. 628 [ 75 P. 306 ]. | 1 | 1954–1954 |
In Re Estate of Layton
green
2 sentences1954See also Davis v. Rudolph, 80 Cal.App.2d 397 [ 181 P.2d 765 ]; Martin v. Ray, 74 Cal.App.2d 922 [ 170 P.2d 75 ]; Estate of Layton, 217 Cal. 451 [ 19 P.2d 793 , 91 A.L.R. 480 ]; and People v. Ward, 141 Cal. 628 [ 75 P. 306 ]. 1954See also Davis v. Rudolph, 80 Cal.App.2d 397 [ 181 P.2d 765 ]; Martin v. Ray, 74 Cal.App.2d 922 [ 170 P.2d 75 ]; Estate of Layton, 217 Cal. 451 [ 19 P.2d 793 , 91 A.L.R. 480 ]; and People v. Ward, 141 Cal. 628 [ 75 P. 306 ]. | 1 | 1954–1954 |
People v. Ward
green
2 sentences1954See also Davis v. Rudolph, 80 Cal.App.2d 397 [ 181 P.2d 765 ]; Martin v. Ray, 74 Cal.App.2d 922 [ 170 P.2d 75 ]; Estate of Layton, 217 Cal. 451 [ 19 P.2d 793 , 91 A.L.R. 480 ]; and People v. Ward, 141 Cal. 628 [ 75 P. 306 ]. 1954See also Davis v. Rudolph, 80 Cal.App.2d 397 [ 181 P.2d 765 ]; Martin v. Ray, 74 Cal.App.2d 922 [ 170 P.2d 75 ]; Estate of Layton, 217 Cal. 451 [ 19 P.2d 793 , 91 A.L.R. 480 ]; and People v. Ward, 141 Cal. 628 [ 75 P. 306 ]. | 1 | 1954–1954 |
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.