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.
9 California opinions name it 2 courts 1955–2024 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Dameron Hospital Assn. v. AAA Northern Cal., Nevada etc.green2 sentences2024(Dameron Hospital, supra, 77 Cal.App.5th at p. 982.) Wiley’s claim fails for this reason alone. 2024(Dameron Hospital, supra, 77 Cal.App.5th at p. 982.) Wiley’s claim fails for this reason alone. | 2 | 2 |
John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Livingstongreen2 sentences1978Smith (1972) 29 Cal.App.3d 326 [ 104 Cal.Rptr. 745 ], the court had to decide whether or not to follow the “ Wiley doctrine,” enunciated in John Wiley & Sons v. Livingston (1964) 376 U.S. 543 [ 11 L.Ed.2d 898 , 84 S.Ct. 909 ], which held that where there is substantial similarity of operation after merger, a successor employer can be required in a suit brought under section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, as amended, to arbitrate a dispute with the union which signed a contract with the predecessor employer. 1978Smith (1972) 29 Cal.App.3d 326 [ 104 Cal.Rptr. 745 ], the court had to decide whether or not to follow the “ Wiley doctrine,” enunciated in John Wiley & Sons v. Livingston (1964) 376 U.S. 543 [ 11 L.Ed.2d 898 , 84 S.Ct. 909 ], which held that where there is substantial similarity of operation after merger, a successor employer can be required in a suit brought under section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, as amended, to arbitrate a dispute with the union which signed a contract with the predecessor employer. | 1 | 2 |
People v. Woodellgreen1 sentence2013(See People v. Woodell (1998) 17 Cal.4th 448, 453 [“The weapon use must be personal, not vicarious; aiding and abetting another who used a deadly weapon would not suffice.”].) A plea of no contest admits the elements of the crime, but does not constitute an admission of any aggravating circumstances. | 1 | 1 |
Nahas v. Local 905, Retail Clerks International Ass'ngreen2 sentences1978After noting that the case did not come within the ambit of the federal statutes because the dispute had no relation to interstate commerce, the court held that the “ Wiley doctrine” was applicable in California because Labor Code section 923 reflected the same public policy as that reflected in the federal statutes. ( 29 Cal.App.3d at p. 335 , see also Knopf v. Producers Guild of America, Inc. (1974) 40 Cal.App.3d 233, 247 [ 114 Cal.Rptr. 782 ]; Nahas v. Local 905, Retail Clerks Assn. (1956) 144 Cal.App.2d 808, 813 [ 301 P.2d 932 , 302 P.2d 829 ].) Similarly, because “the statutory declaratio 1978After noting that the case did not come within the ambit of the federal statutes because the dispute had no relation to interstate commerce, the court held that the “ Wiley doctrine” was applicable in California because Labor Code section 923 reflected the same public policy as that reflected in the federal statutes. ( 29 Cal.App.3d at p. 335 , see also Knopf v. Producers Guild of America, Inc. (1974) 40 Cal.App.3d 233, 247 [ 114 Cal.Rptr. 782 ]; Nahas v. Local 905, Retail Clerks Assn. (1956) 144 Cal.App.2d 808, 813 [ 301 P.2d 932 , 302 P.2d 829 ].) Similarly, because “the statutory declaratio | 1 | 1 |
Knopf v. Producers Guild of America, Inc.green2 sentences1978After noting that the case did not come within the ambit of the federal statutes because the dispute had no relation to interstate commerce, the court held that the “ Wiley doctrine” was applicable in California because Labor Code section 923 reflected the same public policy as that reflected in the federal statutes. ( 29 Cal.App.3d at p. 335 , see also Knopf v. Producers Guild of America, Inc. (1974) 40 Cal.App.3d 233, 247 [ 114 Cal.Rptr. 782 ]; Nahas v. Local 905, Retail Clerks Assn. (1956) 144 Cal.App.2d 808, 813 [ 301 P.2d 932 , 302 P.2d 829 ].) Similarly, because “the statutory declaratio 1978After noting that the case did not come within the ambit of the federal statutes because the dispute had no relation to interstate commerce, the court held that the “ Wiley doctrine” was applicable in California because Labor Code section 923 reflected the same public policy as that reflected in the federal statutes. ( 29 Cal.App.3d at p. 335 , see also Knopf v. Producers Guild of America, Inc. (1974) 40 Cal.App.3d 233, 247 [ 114 Cal.Rptr. 782 ]; Nahas v. Local 905, Retail Clerks Assn. (1956) 144 Cal.App.2d 808, 813 [ 301 P.2d 932 , 302 P.2d 829 ].) Similarly, because “the statutory declaratio | 1 | 1 |
Paud v. Alco Plating Corp.green2 sentences1972Having concluded that the Wiley doctrine is applicable to the instant case, we must affirm the judgment if there is substantial evidence of continuity of identity and substantial similarity of operation of the business before and after the lease. {John Wiley & Sons v. Livingston, supra, 376 U.S. 543, 551 [ 11 L.Ed.2d 898, 905 ]; Paud v. Alco Plating Corp., supra, 21 Cal.App.3d 362, 367-368.) The record discloses that following the execution of the lease, the Smiths continued to operate Welding at its original location. 1972Having concluded that the Wiley doctrine is applicable to the instant case, we must affirm the judgment if there is substantial evidence of continuity of identity and substantial similarity of operation of the business before and after the lease. {John Wiley & Sons v. Livingston, supra, 376 U.S. 543, 551 [ 11 L.Ed.2d 898, 905 ]; Paud v. Alco Plating Corp., supra, 21 Cal.App.3d 362, 367-368.) The record discloses that following the execution of the lease, the Smiths continued to operate Welding at its original location. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Posner v. Grunwald-Marx, Inc.
green
2 sentences2005Actually, all that Napa does is to note the Wiley rule in connection with federal labor arbitration cases, and then to observe that Napa, like this case, involves a governmental employer excluded from coverage under the National Labor Relations Act, and that “however, it is state law, and specifically section 1281.2 of the California arbitration statute which governs . . . .” (Napa, supra, 98 Cal.App.3d at p. 268 , italics added.) Also, Posner v. Grunwald-Marx, Inc. (1961) 56 Cal.2d 169 [ 14 Cal.Rptr. 297 , 363 P.2d 313 ], cited by the Local, is irrelevant as it does not involve the questions 2005Actually, all that Napa does is to note the Wiley rule in connection with federal labor arbitration cases, and then to observe that Napa, like this case, involves a governmental employer excluded from coverage under the National Labor Relations Act, and that “however, it is state law, and specifically section 1281.2 of the California arbitration statute which governs . . . .” (Napa, supra, 98 Cal.App.3d at p. 268 , italics added.) Also, Posner v. Grunwald-Marx, Inc. (1961) 56 Cal.2d 169 [ 14 Cal.Rptr. 297 , 363 P.2d 313 ], cited by the Local, is irrelevant as it does not involve the questions | 2 | 2005–2005 |
Napa Ass'n of Public Employees v. County of Napa
green
2 sentences2005Actually, all that Napa does is to note the Wiley rule in connection with federal labor arbitration cases, and then to observe that Napa, like this case, involves a governmental employer excluded from coverage under the National Labor Relations Act, and that “however, it is state law, and specifically section 1281.2 of the California arbitration statute which governs . . . .” (Napa, supra, 98 Cal.App.3d at p. 268 , italics added.) Also, Posner v. Grunwald-Marx, Inc. (1961) 56 Cal.2d 169 [ 14 Cal.Rptr. 297 , 363 P.2d 313 ], cited by the Local, is irrelevant as it does not involve the questions 2005Actually, all that Napa does is to note the Wiley rule in connection with federal labor arbitration cases, and then to observe that Napa, like this case, involves a governmental employer excluded from coverage under the National Labor Relations Act, and that “however, it is state law, and specifically section 1281.2 of the California arbitration statute which governs . . . .” (Napa, supra, 98 Cal.App.3d at p. 268 , italics added.) Also, Posner v. Grunwald-Marx, Inc. (1961) 56 Cal.2d 169 [ 14 Cal.Rptr. 297 , 363 P.2d 313 ], cited by the Local, is irrelevant as it does not involve the questions | 2 | 2005–2005 |
Omar v. Ralphs Grocery Co.
green
2 sentences2005Actually, all that Napa does is to note the Wiley rule in connection with federal labor arbitration cases, and then to observe that Napa, like this case, involves a governmental employer excluded from coverage under the National Labor Relations Act, and that " however, it is state law, and specifically section 1281.2 of the California arbitration statute which governs...." ( Napa, supra, 98 Cal.App.3d at p. 268 , 159 Cal.Rptr. 522 , italics added.) Also, Posner v. Grunwald-Marx, Inc. (1961) 56 Cal.2d 169 , 14 Cal.Rptr. 297 , 363 P.2d 313 , cited by the Local, is irrelevant as it does not invol 2005Actually, all that Napa does is to note the Wiley rule in connection with federal labor arbitration cases, and then to observe that Napa, like this case, involves a governmental employer excluded from coverage under the National Labor Relations Act, and that " however, it is state law, and specifically section 1281.2 of the California arbitration statute which governs...." ( Napa, supra, 98 Cal.App.3d at p. 268 , 159 Cal.Rptr. 522 , italics added.) Also, Posner v. Grunwald-Marx, Inc. (1961) 56 Cal.2d 169 , 14 Cal.Rptr. 297 , 363 P.2d 313 , cited by the Local, is irrelevant as it does not invol | 2 | 2005–2005 |
Holayter v. Smith
green
2 sentences1978Smith (1972) 29 Cal.App.3d 326 [ 104 Cal.Rptr. 745 ], the court had to decide whether or not to follow the “ Wiley doctrine,” enunciated in John Wiley & Sons v. Livingston (1964) 376 U.S. 543 [ 11 L.Ed.2d 898 , 84 S.Ct. 909 ], which held that where there is substantial similarity of operation after merger, a successor employer can be required in a suit brought under section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, as amended, to arbitrate a dispute with the union which signed a contract with the predecessor employer. 1978Smith (1972) 29 Cal.App.3d 326 [ 104 Cal.Rptr. 745 ], the court had to decide whether or not to follow the “ Wiley doctrine,” enunciated in John Wiley & Sons v. Livingston (1964) 376 U.S. 543 [ 11 L.Ed.2d 898 , 84 S.Ct. 909 ], which held that where there is substantial similarity of operation after merger, a successor employer can be required in a suit brought under section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, as amended, to arbitrate a dispute with the union which signed a contract with the predecessor employer. | 2 | 1974–1978 |
Hines v. Anchor Motor Freight, Inc.
green
2 sentences1978After noting that the case did not come within the ambit of the federal statutes because the dispute had no relation to interstate commerce, the court held that the “ Wiley doctrine” was applicable in California because Labor Code section 923 reflected the same public policy as that reflected in the federal statutes. ( 29 Cal.App.3d at p. 335 , see also Knopf v. Producers Guild of America, Inc. (1974) 40 Cal.App.3d 233, 247 [ 114 Cal.Rptr. 782 ]; Nahas v. Local 905, Retail Clerks Assn. (1956) 144 Cal.App.2d 808, 813 [ 301 P.2d 932 , 302 P.2d 829 ].) Similarly, because “the statutory declaratio 1978After noting that the case did not come within the ambit of the federal statutes because the dispute had no relation to interstate commerce, the court held that the “ Wiley doctrine” was applicable in California because Labor Code section 923 reflected the same public policy as that reflected in the federal statutes. ( 29 Cal.App.3d at p. 335 , see also Knopf v. Producers Guild of America, Inc. (1974) 40 Cal.App.3d 233, 247 [ 114 Cal.Rptr. 782 ]; Nahas v. Local 905, Retail Clerks Assn. (1956) 144 Cal.App.2d 808, 813 [ 301 P.2d 932 , 302 P.2d 829 ].) Similarly, because “the statutory declaratio | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Estate of Stanley
green
2 sentences1955In Estate of Stanley, 34 Cal.2d 311 [ 209 P.2d 941 ], the two heirs entered into an agreement concerning the distribution of the estate. 1955In Estate of Stanley, 34 Cal.2d 311 [ 209 P.2d 941 ], the two heirs entered into an agreement concerning the distribution of the estate. | 1 | 1955–1955 |
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.