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.
6 California opinions name it 1 courts 1958–2025 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Frontier Pacific Insurancegreen1 sentence2025Co. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1289, 1292 [counsel’s belief that the defendant was absent due to a misunderstanding was sufficient to retain jurisdiction].) Because “the court was confronted with reassurances by defendant’s counsel which apparently suggested to the court that the failure to appear was excusable . . . certainly, it cannot be said that the acceptance of the excuse constituted an abuse of discretion.” (United Bonding, supra, 5 Cal.3d at p. 906 .)5 In turn, the court retained jurisdiction to order a forfeiture and enter summary judgment on the bond after the July hearing. | 1 | 1 |
Gulf Ins. Co. v. TIG Ins. Co.green1 sentence2022Co. (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 422, 439 [“where the principal knows that the agent holds himself out as clothed with certain authority, and remains silent, such conduct on the part of the principal may give rise to liability”]); and (3) defendant’s mid-July instruction to Aoun to “take care of” the leak problem with his house. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Marriage of Hubnergreen2 sentences2015(See similarly In re Marriage of Hubner (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 175, 183 [failure to make required findings is “reversible error if the missing information is not otherwise discernible from the record”].) Gilbert argues that the family court should be presumed to have applied an incorrect standard of law, since at the July hearing the court instructed Lowy to file a declaration describing Gilbert’s purportedly abusive tactics. 2015(See similarly In re Marriage of Hubner (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 175, 183 [failure to make required findings is “reversible error if the missing information is not otherwise discernible from the record”].) Gilbert argues that the family court should be presumed to have applied an incorrect standard of law, since at the July hearing the court instructed Lowy to file a declaration describing Gilbert’s purportedly abusive tactics. | 1 | 1 |
International Shoe Co. v. Washingtongreen2 sentences1958Petitioner there undertook to show that it never has been engaged in business within this state, nor had local contacts “such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’ ” (The test prescribed by International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 [ 66 S.Ct. 154 , 90 L.Ed. 95 , 161 A.L.R. 1057 ].) Petitioner’s affidavits also allege that all California activities for or on behalf of Confidential ceased in March, 1957; that May was the month of circulation of the July issue of the magazine; that no sales of any later issue hav 1958Petitioner there undertook to show that it never has been engaged in business within this state, nor had local contacts “such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’ ” (The test prescribed by International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 [ 66 S.Ct. 154 , 90 L.Ed. 95 , 161 A.L.R. 1057 ].) Petitioner’s affidavits also allege that all California activities for or on behalf of Confidential ceased in March, 1957; that May was the month of circulation of the July issue of the magazine; that no sales of any later issue hav | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. United Bonding Insurance
green
1 sentence2025Co. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1289, 1292 [counsel’s belief that the defendant was absent due to a misunderstanding was sufficient to retain jurisdiction].) Because “the court was confronted with reassurances by defendant’s counsel which apparently suggested to the court that the failure to appear was excusable . . . certainly, it cannot be said that the acceptance of the excuse constituted an abuse of discretion.” (United Bonding, supra, 5 Cal.3d at p. 906 .)5 In turn, the court retained jurisdiction to order a forfeiture and enter summary judgment on the bond after the July hearing. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Reisman v. Shahverdian
green
2 sentences2023(Walker v. San Francisco Housing Authority (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 685, 692 ; Gridley, supra, 166 Cal.App.4th at p. 1583 .) Put another way, “[a]ncillary proceedings are not a continuation of the stipulated cause,” so a [commissioner] has no power to hear them absent a new stipulation.” (Reisman v. Shahverdian, supra, 153 Cal.App.3d at p. 1095 .) Thiele stipulated to the commissioner’s jurisdiction when she participated in the July hearing before the commissioner. 2023(Walker v. San Francisco Housing Authority (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 685, 692 ; Gridley, supra, 166 Cal.App.4th at p. 1583 .) Put another way, “[a]ncillary proceedings are not a continuation of the stipulated cause,” so a [commissioner] has no power to hear them absent a new stipulation.” (Reisman v. Shahverdian, supra, 153 Cal.App.3d at p. 1095 .) Thiele stipulated to the commissioner’s jurisdiction when she participated in the July hearing before the commissioner. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Gridley v. Gridley
green
2 sentences2023(Walker v. San Francisco Housing Authority (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 685, 692 ; Gridley, supra, 166 Cal.App.4th at p. 1583 .) Put another way, “[a]ncillary proceedings are not a continuation of the stipulated cause,” so a [commissioner] has no power to hear them absent a new stipulation.” (Reisman v. Shahverdian, supra, 153 Cal.App.3d at p. 1095 .) Thiele stipulated to the commissioner’s jurisdiction when she participated in the July hearing before the commissioner. 2023(Walker v. San Francisco Housing Authority (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 685, 692 ; Gridley, supra, 166 Cal.App.4th at p. 1583 .) Put another way, “[a]ncillary proceedings are not a continuation of the stipulated cause,” so a [commissioner] has no power to hear them absent a new stipulation.” (Reisman v. Shahverdian, supra, 153 Cal.App.3d at p. 1095 .) Thiele stipulated to the commissioner’s jurisdiction when she participated in the July hearing before the commissioner. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Walker v. San Francisco Housing Authority
green
2 sentences2023(Walker v. San Francisco Housing Authority (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 685, 692 ; Gridley, supra, 166 Cal.App.4th at p. 1583 .) Put another way, “[a]ncillary proceedings are not a continuation of the stipulated cause,” so a [commissioner] has no power to hear them absent a new stipulation.” (Reisman v. Shahverdian, supra, 153 Cal.App.3d at p. 1095 .) Thiele stipulated to the commissioner’s jurisdiction when she participated in the July hearing before the commissioner. 2023(Walker v. San Francisco Housing Authority (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 685, 692 ; Gridley, supra, 166 Cal.App.4th at p. 1583 .) Put another way, “[a]ncillary proceedings are not a continuation of the stipulated cause,” so a [commissioner] has no power to hear them absent a new stipulation.” (Reisman v. Shahverdian, supra, 153 Cal.App.3d at p. 1095 .) Thiele stipulated to the commissioner’s jurisdiction when she participated in the July hearing before the commissioner. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
In Re Marriage of Barthold
green
2 sentences2021She did not have to go to court to be excused from the delay as long as the broker had recommended it.’ “The court concluded by ordering that: ‘The motion for reconsideration is granted. [Kay] is entitled to the [listing] bonus. . . .’ ” ( Barthold, supra, 158 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1306–1307.) Reaching that decision, our colleagues observed among other things that “although the trial court’s reconsideration of its earlier order was not the result of ‘an unprovoked flash of understanding’ on the part of the judge, it clearly was intended to correct an order that the court had come to believe was e 2021She did not have to go to court to be excused from the delay as long as the broker had recommended it.’ “The court concluded by ordering that: ‘The motion for reconsideration is granted. [Kay] is entitled to the [listing] bonus. . . .’ ” ( Barthold, supra, 158 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1306–1307.) Reaching that decision, our colleagues observed among other things that “although the trial court’s reconsideration of its earlier order was not the result of ‘an unprovoked flash of understanding’ on the part of the judge, it clearly was intended to correct an order that the court had come to believe was e | 1 | 2021–2021 |
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.