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 1982–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Humbert v. Dunngreen2 sentences2003As our Supreme Court explained in Humbert v. Dunn (1890) 84 Cal. 57, 59 [24 P. Ill], this requirement, which is taken from the United States Constitution, ‘had its origin in Parliament in the seventeenth century, when the people of Great Britain, to provide against the abuse by the king and his officers of the discretionary money power with which they were vested, demanded that the public funds should not be drawn from the treasury except in accordance with express appropriations therefor made by Parliament [citation]; and the system worked so well in correcting the abuses complained of, our f 2002As our Supreme Court explained in Humbert v. Dunn (1890) 84 Cal. 57, 59 [ 24 P. 111 ], this requirement, which is taken from the United States Constitution, “had its origin in Parliament in the seventeenth century, when the people of Great Britain, to provide against the abuse by the king and his officers of the discretionary money power with which they were vested, demanded that the public funds should not be drawn from the treasury except in accordance with express appropriations therefor made by Parliament [citation]; and the system worked so well in correcting the abuses complained of, our | 2 | 3 |
Minsky v. City of Los Angelesgreen2 sentences2004(See Minsky v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 11 Cal.3d at p. 120, fn. 11 ; Burgdorf v. Funder (1966) 246 Cal.App.2d 443 , 446^47 [ 54 Cal.Rptr. 805 ].) But these amendments did not alter the fundamental nature of the claim presentation requirement—which still required plaintiffs to submit a timely claim for money or damages to a public entity in order to maintain an action against that entity. 2004(See Minsky v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 11 Cal.3d at p. 120, fn. 11 ; Burgdorf v. Funder (1966) 246 Cal.App.2d 443 , 446^47 [ 54 Cal.Rptr. 805 ].) But these amendments did not alter the fundamental nature of the claim presentation requirement—which still required plaintiffs to submit a timely claim for money or damages to a public entity in order to maintain an action against that entity. | 2 | 2 |
Sanabria v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1982“The fundamental nature of this rule [barring retrial after acquittal] is manifested by its explicit extension to situations where an acquittal is ‘based upon an egregiously erroneous foundation.’” (Sanabria v. United States (1978) 437 U.S. 54, 64 [ 57 L.Ed.2d 43, 54 , 98 S.Ct. 2170 ].) We are thus left with a number of alternatives, none of which, we candidly concede, is perfect. 1982“The fundamental nature of this rule [barring retrial after acquittal] is manifested by its explicit extension to situations where an acquittal is ‘based upon an egregiously erroneous foundation.’” (Sanabria v. United States (1978) 437 U.S. 54, 64 [ 57 L.Ed.2d 43, 54 , 98 S.Ct. 2170 ].) We are thus left with a number of alternatives, none of which, we candidly concede, is perfect. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Burgdorf v. Funder
green
2 sentences2004(See Minsky v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 11 Cal.3d at p. 120, fn. 11 ; Burgdorf v. Funder (1966) 246 Cal.App.2d 443 , 446^47 [ 54 Cal.Rptr. 805 ].) But these amendments did not alter the fundamental nature of the claim presentation requirement—which still required plaintiffs to submit a timely claim for money or damages to a public entity in order to maintain an action against that entity. 2004(See Minsky v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 11 Cal.3d at p. 120, fn. 11 ; Burgdorf v. Funder (1966) 246 Cal.App.2d 443 , 446^47 [ 54 Cal.Rptr. 805 ].) But these amendments did not alter the fundamental nature of the claim presentation requirement—which still required plaintiffs to submit a timely claim for money or damages to a public entity in order to maintain an action against that entity. | 2 | 2004–2004 |
Nationwide Biweekly Administration, Inc. v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence2026(Nationwide, supra, 9 Cal.5th at pp. 318-320, 323-324.) Based on the standards that must be applied to assess the elements of the defense, and the available remedies, we are persuaded that the fundamental nature of the defense, in its current form, is equitable for three reasons. 10 It may be the case that parties to a breach of contract action have a right to a jury trial on a defendant’s impracticability defense if the factual basis alleged in support tracks the elements of the defense of impossibility of performance as it existed in England before 1850, i.e., if the defendant alleges that p | 1 | 2026–2026 |
White v. Davis
green
1 sentence2003To hold otherwise would gut the requirement.” (Wh ite v. Davis I, supra, 108 Cal.App.4th at pp. 197, 230.) The Court of Appeal, in similarly denying the employees’ claim that the preliminary injunction violated the due process clause insofar as it denied them the payment of their full salaries during a budget impasse, reasoned that “[u]nder principles of contract interpretation, ‘ “ ‘all applicable laws in existence when an agreement is made, which laws the parties are presumed to know and to have in mind, necessarily enter into the contract and form a part of it . . . ” “For this reason, stat | 1 | 2003–2003 |
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.