Stiles factors (California) · Go Syfert
← California issues

Stiles factors in California

7 California opinions name it 1 courts 1998–2025 6 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 (4)

CaseFollowedCited
In Re Marriage of Stevenotgreen
calctapp · 1984 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1998–2022
2 sentences

2022Lastly, the moving party must demonstrate diligence in seeking to set aside the default once . . . discovered.’ (Stiles v. Wallis [(1983)] 147 Cal.App.3d [1143,] 1147–1148 [extrinsic mistake case]; see also Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 982 [extrinsic mistake case, quoting Stiles test with approval]; In re Marriage of Stevenot (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 1051, 1071 [applying Stiles factors in extrinsic fraud case].)” (Gibble, supra, 67 Cal.App.4th at p. 315 .) “We review an order denying equitable relief for an abuse of discretion.

2022Lastly, the moving party must demonstrate diligence in seeking to set aside the default once . . . discovered.’ (Stiles v. Wallis [(1983)] 147 Cal.App.3d [1143,] 1147–1148 [extrinsic mistake case]; see also Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 982 [extrinsic mistake case, quoting Stiles test with approval]; In re Marriage of Stevenot (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 1051, 1071 [applying Stiles factors in extrinsic fraud case].)” (Gibble, supra, 67 Cal.App.4th at p. 315 .) “We review an order denying equitable relief for an abuse of discretion.

22
Rappleyea v. Campbellgreen
cal · 1994 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1998–2022
2 sentences

2022Lastly, the moving party must demonstrate diligence in seeking to set aside the default once . . . discovered.’ (Stiles v. Wallis [(1983)] 147 Cal.App.3d [1143,] 1147–1148 [extrinsic mistake case]; see also Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 982 [extrinsic mistake case, quoting Stiles test with approval]; In re Marriage of Stevenot (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 1051, 1071 [applying Stiles factors in extrinsic fraud case].)” (Gibble, supra, 67 Cal.App.4th at p. 315 .) “We review an order denying equitable relief for an abuse of discretion.

2022Lastly, the moving party must demonstrate diligence in seeking to set aside the default once . . . discovered.’ (Stiles v. Wallis [(1983)] 147 Cal.App.3d [1143,] 1147–1148 [extrinsic mistake case]; see also Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 982 [extrinsic mistake case, quoting Stiles test with approval]; In re Marriage of Stevenot (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 1051, 1071 [applying Stiles factors in extrinsic fraud case].)” (Gibble, supra, 67 Cal.App.4th at p. 315 .) “We review an order denying equitable relief for an abuse of discretion.

22
People v. Mirandagreen
calctapp · 2004 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021
1 sentence

2021(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)(5) [if the notice of appeal states that the appeal is based on postplea matters not affecting the plea’s validity, then “the reviewing court will not consider any issue affecting the validity of the plea unless” the defendant obtains a certificate of probable 2 cause].) We also cannot review the order denying Stiles’s motion to withdraw his plea, because it is not appealable. (§ 1018 [motion to withdraw plea must be brought before judgment]; People v. Miranda (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1124, 1134 [deadline for motion to withdraw plea is jurisdictional]; People v

11
People v. Turringreen
calctapp · 2009 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021
1 sentence

2021(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)(5) [if the notice of appeal states that the appeal is based on postplea matters not affecting the plea’s validity, then “the reviewing court will not consider any issue affecting the validity of the plea unless” the defendant obtains a certificate of probable 2 cause].) We also cannot review the order denying Stiles’s motion to withdraw his plea, because it is not appealable. (§ 1018 [motion to withdraw plea must be brought before judgment]; People v. Miranda (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1124, 1134 [deadline for motion to withdraw plea is jurisdictional]; People v

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (6)

CaseCitedYears
People v. Mickle green
cal · 1991
2 sentences

2025Stiles’s claim that the court’s request for clarification was a rejection of the jury’s readback request is “speculative and implausible.” (People v. Mickle, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 174 .) II.

2022Stiles’s claim that the court’s request for clarification was a rejection of the jury’s readback request is “speculative and implausible.” (People v. Mickle, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 174 .) II.

22022–2025
Jensen v. BMW of North America, Inc. green
calctapp · 1995
2 sentences

2024In all other respects the request for judicial notice is denied as unnecessary to this opinion. 4 Stiles’s motion for judicial notice of briefs filed in Jensen, supra, 35 Cal.App.4th 112 , filed on February 26, 2024, is denied as unnecessary to this opinion. 5 Kia’s motion to strike or leave to file supplemental brief, filed on March 13, 2024, is denied.

2024In all other respects the request for judicial notice is denied as unnecessary to this opinion. 4 Stiles’s motion for judicial notice of briefs filed in Jensen, supra, 35 Cal.App.4th 112 , filed on February 26, 2024, is denied as unnecessary to this opinion. 5 Kia’s motion to strike or leave to file supplemental brief, filed on March 13, 2024, is denied.

22024–2024
Gibble v. Car-Lene Research, Inc. green
calctapp · 1998
2 sentences

2022Lastly, the moving party must demonstrate diligence in seeking to set aside the default once . . . discovered.’ (Stiles v. Wallis [(1983)] 147 Cal.App.3d [1143,] 1147–1148 [extrinsic mistake case]; see also Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 982 [extrinsic mistake case, quoting Stiles test with approval]; In re Marriage of Stevenot (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 1051, 1071 [applying Stiles factors in extrinsic fraud case].)” (Gibble, supra, 67 Cal.App.4th at p. 315 .) “We review an order denying equitable relief for an abuse of discretion.

2022Lastly, the moving party must demonstrate diligence in seeking to set aside the default once . . . discovered.’ (Stiles v. Wallis [(1983)] 147 Cal.App.3d [1143,] 1147–1148 [extrinsic mistake case]; see also Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 982 [extrinsic mistake case, quoting Stiles test with approval]; In re Marriage of Stevenot (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 1051, 1071 [applying Stiles factors in extrinsic fraud case].)” (Gibble, supra, 67 Cal.App.4th at p. 315 .) “We review an order denying equitable relief for an abuse of discretion.

12022–2022
County of San Diego v. Gorham green
calctapp · 2010
2 sentences

2022(County of San Diego v. Gorham (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1215, 1230 .) ‘In doing so, we determine whether the trial court’s factual findings are supported by substantial evidence [citation] and independently review its statutory interpretations and legal conclusions [citations].’ (Ibid.)” (Hudson v. Foster (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 640 , 661.) In Haywood’s motion to vacate the judgment, she did not articulate any excuse based on fraud by RTED that deprived her of the opportunity to present her claims in the action.

2022(County of San Diego v. Gorham (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1215, 1230 .) ‘In doing so, we determine whether the trial court’s factual findings are supported by substantial evidence [citation] and independently review its statutory interpretations and legal conclusions [citations].’ (Ibid.)” (Hudson v. Foster (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 640 , 661.) In Haywood’s motion to vacate the judgment, she did not articulate any excuse based on fraud by RTED that deprived her of the opportunity to present her claims in the action.

12022–2022
People v. Wende green
cal · 1979
1 sentence

2021(People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109-110 ; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441 .) DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

12021–2021
People v. Kelly green
cal · 2006
1 sentence

2021(People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109-110 ; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441 .) DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

12021–2021

Where else courts name it

CA 7 (1998–2025) NY 3 (2007–2023) TX 2 (1992–2016)

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