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 3 courts 1974–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Columbia Engineering Co. v. Joinergreen2 sentences1978(See, e.g., Columbia Engineering Co. v. Joiner (1965) 231 Cal.App.2d 837, 842-849 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 241 ].) The code provides very broadly that ‘[t]he court may determine the person entitled to the office of director or may order a new election to be held or appointment to be made, and direct such other relief as may be just and proper.’ (§ 2238.) In determining a challenge to a corporate election the court should consider all factors bearing on the validity of the questioned election and give effective direction to the relief required. 1978(See, e.g., Columbia Engineering Co. v. Joiner (1965) 231 Cal.App.2d 837, 842-849 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 241 ].) The code provides very broadly that ‘[t]he court may determine the person entitled to the office of director or may order a new election to be held or appointment to be made, and direct such other relief as may be just and proper.’ (§ 2238.) In determining a challenge to a corporate election the court should consider all factors bearing on the validity of the questioned election and give effective direction to the relief required. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Preyergreen1 sentence2015(See People v. Preyer (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 568, 573 [“ ‘An appellate tribunal is neither authorized nor warranted in substituting its judgment for the judgment of the trial judge.’ ”].) It is well established that “probation is not a matter of right, but an act of grace or clemency, the granting or denial of which is within the court’s discretion.” (People v. Axtell (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 246, 256 (Axtell).) In determining whether the defendant deserves such clemency, the court should consider all factors and circumstances surrounding the case, including the probation officer’s report. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Axtellgreen1 sentence2015(See People v. Preyer (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 568, 573 [“ ‘An appellate tribunal is neither authorized nor warranted in substituting its judgment for the judgment of the trial judge.’ ”].) It is well established that “probation is not a matter of right, but an act of grace or clemency, the granting or denial of which is within the court’s discretion.” (People v. Axtell (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 246, 256 (Axtell).) In determining whether the defendant deserves such clemency, the court should consider all factors and circumstances surrounding the case, including the probation officer’s report. | 1 | 1 |
Lawrence v. I. N. Parlier Estate Co.green2 sentences1978(See, e.g., Columbia Engineering Co. v. Joiner (1965) 231 Cal. App.2d 837, 842-849 [ 42 Cal. Rptr. 241 ].) The code provides very broadly that `[t]he court may determine the person entitled to the office of director or may order a new election to be held or appointment to be made, and direct such other relief as may be just and proper.' (§ 2238.) In determining a challenge to a corporate election the court should consider all factors bearing on the validity of the questioned election and give effective direction to the relief required. ( Lawrence v. I. *183 N. Parlier Estate Co. (1940) 15 Cal. 1978(See, e.g., Columbia Engineering Co. v. Joiner (1965) 231 Cal. App.2d 837, 842-849 [ 42 Cal. Rptr. 241 ].) The code provides very broadly that `[t]he court may determine the person entitled to the office of director or may order a new election to be held or appointment to be made, and direct such other relief as may be just and proper.' (§ 2238.) In determining a challenge to a corporate election the court should consider all factors bearing on the validity of the questioned election and give effective direction to the relief required. ( Lawrence v. I. *183 N. Parlier Estate Co. (1940) 15 Cal. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Steven A. v. Rickie M.
green
2 sentences2018The court noted that an unwed father has a constitutional due process right to establish a parental relationship with his child only if he "promptly comes forward and demonstrates a full commitment to his parental responsibilities-emotional, financial, and otherwise ...." ( Kelsey S ., supra , at p. 849, 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 615 , 823 P.2d 1216 .) "A court should consider all factors relevant to that determination. 2018The court noted that an unwed father has a constitutional due process right to establish a parental relationship with his child only if he "promptly comes forward and demonstrates a full commitment to his parental responsibilities-emotional, financial, and otherwise ...." ( Kelsey S ., supra , at p. 849, 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 615 , 823 P.2d 1216 .) "A court should consider all factors relevant to that determination. | 4 | 1995–2018 |
People v. Podesto
green
1 sentence2015(People v. Podesto (1976) 62 Cal.App.3d 708, 723 .) Appellant’s probation officer recommended he be sentenced to a four-year prison term. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.