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 1 courts 1990–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Planned Protective Services, Inc. v. Gortongreen2 sentences2013This rule is based on fairnessit would be unfair, both to the trial court and the opposing litigants, to permit a change of theory on appeal; and it also reflects principles of estoppel and waiver." (Eisenberg, et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Appeals and Writs (The Rutter Group 2012) ¶ 8:229, p. 8-155.) Plaintiffs cite Planned Protective Servs. v. Gorton (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 1 , which applied the theory of the case doctrine to preclude a party from raising for the first time on appeal a statutory defense to an award of attorney fees under section 1021.7. ( Gorton, supra, at pp. 12-13 .) T 2013This rule is based on fairnessit would be unfair, both to the trial court and the opposing litigants, to permit a change of theory on appeal; and it also reflects principles of estoppel and waiver." (Eisenberg, et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Appeals and Writs (The Rutter Group 2012) ¶ 8:229, p. 8-155.) Plaintiffs cite Planned Protective Servs. v. Gorton (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 1 , which applied the theory of the case doctrine to preclude a party from raising for the first time on appeal a statutory defense to an award of attorney fees under section 1021.7. ( Gorton, supra, at pp. 12-13 .) T | 2 | 3 |
Tyler v. Nortongreen2 sentences2014In short, a party may not play a game of ‘“Heads I win, Tails you lose” with the trial court.’ (Tyler v. Norton (1973) 34 Cal.App.3d 717, 722 [ 110 Cal.Rptr. 307 ].)” Finally, Lansdale and Financial Corporation are barred from raising the voidability defenses on appeal under the theory of the case doctrine. “‘It is a firmly entrenched principle of appellate practice that litigants must adhere to the theory on which a case was tried. 2014In short, a party may not play a game of ‘“Heads I win, Tails you lose” with the trial court.’ (Tyler v. Norton (1973) 34 Cal.App.3d 717, 722 [ 110 Cal.Rptr. 307 ].)” Finally, Lansdale and Financial Corporation are barred from raising the voidability defenses on appeal under the theory of the case doctrine. “‘It is a firmly entrenched principle of appellate practice that litigants must adhere to the theory on which a case was tried. | 1 | 1 |
Humane Society of United States v. Superior Courtgreen1 sentence2014They will often be considered where the issue relates to questions of law only. [Citations.] Appellate courts are more inclined to consider such tardily raised legal issues where the public interest or public policy is involved. [Citations.] And whether the rule shall be applied is largely a question of the appellate court’s discretion.” [Citations.]’ (Ibid; see Avalos v. Perez (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 773, 776-777 [ 127 Cal.Rptr.3d 106 ] [appellate court has discretion to consider new issues where public interest is involved].)” (Humane Society, supra, 214 Cal.App.4th at p. 1273 , italics added | 1 | 1 |
Avalos v. Perezgreen2 sentences2014They will often be considered where the issue relates to questions of law only. [Citations.] Appellate courts are more inclined to consider such tardily raised legal issues where the public interest or public policy is involved. [Citations.] And whether the rule shall be applied is largely a question of the appellate court’s discretion.” [Citations.]’ (Ibid; see Avalos v. Perez (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 773, 776-777 [ 127 Cal.Rptr.3d 106 ] [appellate court has discretion to consider new issues where public interest is involved].)” (Humane Society, supra, 214 Cal.App.4th at p. 1273 , italics added 2014They will often be considered where the issue relates to questions of law only. [Citations.] Appellate courts are more inclined to consider such tardily raised legal issues where the public interest or public policy is involved. [Citations.] And whether the rule shall be applied is largely a question of the appellate court’s discretion.” [Citations.]’ (Ibid; see Avalos v. Perez (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 773, 776-777 [ 127 Cal.Rptr.3d 106 ] [appellate court has discretion to consider new issues where public interest is involved].)” (Humane Society, supra, 214 Cal.App.4th at p. 1273 , italics added | 1 | 1 |
In Re the Marriage of Broderickgreen2 sentences1993Its contention, therefore, may not be raised for the first time on appeal. [Citations.]”); Planned Protective Services, Inc. v. Gorton (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 1,13 [ 245 Cal.Rptr. 790 ] (“The doctrine of theory of the case has been applied where the parties assumed the applicability of a particular statute or ordinance.”); In re Marriage of Broderick (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 489, 501 [ 257 Cal.Rptr. 397 ] (Per Anderson, P. J.: “Similarly, an *499 appellant waives his right to attack error by expressly or implicitly agreeing or acquiescing at trial to the ruling or procedure objected to on appeal.”) 1993Its contention, therefore, may not be raised for the first time on appeal. [Citations.]”); Planned Protective Services, Inc. v. Gorton (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 1,13 [ 245 Cal.Rptr. 790 ] (“The doctrine of theory of the case has been applied where the parties assumed the applicability of a particular statute or ordinance.”); In re Marriage of Broderick (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 489, 501 [ 257 Cal.Rptr. 397 ] (Per Anderson, P. J.: “Similarly, an *499 appellant waives his right to attack error by expressly or implicitly agreeing or acquiescing at trial to the ruling or procedure objected to on appeal.”) | 1 | 1 |
Shoemaker v. Myersgreen1 sentence1993Its contention, therefore, may not be raised for the first time on appeal. [Citations.]”); Planned Protective Services, Inc. v. Gorton (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 1,13 [ 245 Cal.Rptr. 790 ] (“The doctrine of theory of the case has been applied where the parties assumed the applicability of a particular statute or ordinance.”); In re Marriage of Broderick (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 489, 501 [ 257 Cal.Rptr. 397 ] (Per Anderson, P. J.: “Similarly, an *499 appellant waives his right to attack error by expressly or implicitly agreeing or acquiescing at trial to the ruling or procedure objected to on appeal.”) | 1 | 1 |
Gantt v. Sentry Insurancegreen2 sentences1993Its contention, therefore, may not be raised for the first time on appeal. [Citations.]”); Planned Protective Services, Inc. v. Gorton (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 1,13 [ 245 Cal.Rptr. 790 ] (“The doctrine of theory of the case has been applied where the parties assumed the applicability of a particular statute or ordinance.”); In re Marriage of Broderick (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 489, 501 [ 257 Cal.Rptr. 397 ] (Per Anderson, P. J.: “Similarly, an *499 appellant waives his right to attack error by expressly or implicitly agreeing or acquiescing at trial to the ruling or procedure objected to on appeal.”) 1993Its contention, therefore, may not be raised for the first time on appeal. [Citations.]”); Planned Protective Services, Inc. v. Gorton (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 1,13 [ 245 Cal.Rptr. 790 ] (“The doctrine of theory of the case has been applied where the parties assumed the applicability of a particular statute or ordinance.”); In re Marriage of Broderick (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 489, 501 [ 257 Cal.Rptr. 397 ] (Per Anderson, P. J.: “Similarly, an *499 appellant waives his right to attack error by expressly or implicitly agreeing or acquiescing at trial to the ruling or procedure objected to on appeal.”) | 1 | 1 |
Cole v. Fair Oaks Fire Protection Districtgreen2 sentences1993Its contention, therefore, may not be raised for the first time on appeal. [Citations.]”); Planned Protective Services, Inc. v. Gorton (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 1,13 [ 245 Cal.Rptr. 790 ] (“The doctrine of theory of the case has been applied where the parties assumed the applicability of a particular statute or ordinance.”); In re Marriage of Broderick (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 489, 501 [ 257 Cal.Rptr. 397 ] (Per Anderson, P. J.: “Similarly, an *499 appellant waives his right to attack error by expressly or implicitly agreeing or acquiescing at trial to the ruling or procedure objected to on appeal.”) 1993Its contention, therefore, may not be raised for the first time on appeal. [Citations.]”); Planned Protective Services, Inc. v. Gorton (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 1,13 [ 245 Cal.Rptr. 790 ] (“The doctrine of theory of the case has been applied where the parties assumed the applicability of a particular statute or ordinance.”); In re Marriage of Broderick (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 489, 501 [ 257 Cal.Rptr. 397 ] (Per Anderson, P. J.: “Similarly, an *499 appellant waives his right to attack error by expressly or implicitly agreeing or acquiescing at trial to the ruling or procedure objected to on appeal.”) | 1 | 1 |
Richmond v. Dart Industries, Inc.green2 sentences1990(Richmond v. Dart Industries, Inc. (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 869, 874, 879 [ 242 Cal.Rptr. 184 ].) This theory of the case doctrine is applicable to a motion for an award of attorney fees. 1990(Richmond v. Dart Industries, Inc. (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 869, 874, 879 [ 242 Cal.Rptr. 184 ].) This theory of the case doctrine is applicable to a motion for an award of attorney fees. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Rouse v. Underwood
green
2 sentences2000In addition, Rouse was decided based upon the doctrine of the theory of the case by trial. ( Rouse, supra, 242 Cal.App.2d at p. 328 , 51 Cal.Rptr. 437 .) The Rouse plaintiff did not assert that laches was not properly before the trial court, but instead argued that the defense was not factually or legally supported. 2000In addition, Rouse was decided based upon the doctrine of the theory of the case by trial. ( Rouse, supra, 242 Cal.App.2d at p. 328 , 51 Cal.Rptr. 437 .) The Rouse plaintiff did not assert that laches was not properly before the trial court, but instead argued that the defense was not factually or legally supported. | 2 | 2000–2000 |
Arteaga v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence2022(Arteaga v. Superior Court (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 851, 868 .) We will therefore consider the merits of Teachers’ argument here. 32 p. 584). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Tesoro Del Valle Master Homeowners Ass'n v. Griffin
green
1 sentence2014Stated otherwise, a litigant may not change his or her position on appeal and assert a new theory.’” (Tesoro Del Valle Master Homeowners Assn. v. Griffin (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 619, 630 .) The record demonstrates that throughout the pleading and pretrial stages, Lansdale and Financial Corporation adhered to the theory that no payment obligation had accrued under the 2005 letter agreement because certain contingencies had not occurred and they strategically avoided any reliance on the voidability defenses. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
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.