order rejecting claim in California

6 California opinions name it 1 courts 1929–2014 0 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)

Case	Followed	Cited
Security First National Bank v. Grantgreen cal · 1964 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1974–1974 2 sentences 1974The statute is exclusive (Estate of Bissinger, 60 Cal.2d 756, 759 [ 36 Cal.Rptr. 450 , 388 P.2d 682 , 19 A.L.R.3d 506 ]; Orth v. Superior Court, 244 Cal.App.2d 474 [ 53 Cal.Rptr. 156 , 25 A.L.R.3d 1348 ]), and much narrower in its scope than Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1. (6 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (2d ed.) Appeal, § 95.) Neither an order overruling objections to an account nor an order rejecting a claim are specifically mentioned in the statute. 1974The statute is exclusive (Estate of Bissinger, 60 Cal.2d 756, 759 [ 36 Cal.Rptr. 450 , 388 P.2d 682 , 19 A.L.R.3d 506 ]; Orth v. Superior Court, 244 Cal.App.2d 474 [ 53 Cal.Rptr. 156 , 25 A.L.R.3d 1348 ]), and much narrower in its scope than Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1. (6 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (2d ed.) Appeal, § 95.) Neither an order overruling objections to an account nor an order rejecting a claim are specifically mentioned in the statute.	2	2
Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. Kimberly G.green calctapp · 2012 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 1 sentence 2014(Bailey J., supra, 189 Cal.App.4th at p. 1314 .) Because the parent or other proponent had the burden of proving the exceptions to adoption, the precise question for a reviewing court on a parent’s appeal from an order rejecting an exception is “whether the evidence compels a finding in favor of the appellant as a matter of law.” (Id. at p. 1314; In re I.W. (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 1517, 1528 .) As to whether the existence of a bond between the parents or siblings is so strong that the child would suffer detriment from its termination, that decision is “a ‘quintessentially’ discretionary decisio	1	1
Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc.green cal · 1984 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 2 sentences 2008Proc., § 1088; Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, 177-180 [ 203 Cal.Rptr. 626 , 681 P.2d 893 ].) Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue directing the juvenile court to vacate its order accepting the peremptory challenge to Judge Marion and enter a new order rejecting the challenge and returning the cases involving William and Noah to Judge Marion. 2008Proc., § 1088; Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, 177-180 [ 203 Cal.Rptr. 626 , 681 P.2d 893 ].) Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue directing the juvenile court to vacate its order accepting the peremptory challenge to Judge Marion and enter a new order rejecting the challenge and returning the cases involving William and Noah to Judge Marion.	1	1
In re the Estate of Sullenbergergreen cal · 1887 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1929–1929 1 sentence 1929(In re Sullenberger, 72 Cal. 549, 552 [ 14 Pac. 513 ].) The evidence was sufficient to support the order rejecting the claim.	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (8)

Case	Cited	Years
Schnipper v. Jensen neutral calctapp · 1963 2 sentences 2007Estate of Middleton [(1963)] 215 Cal.App.2d 324 [ 30 Cal.Rptr. 155 ], and Orth v. Superior Court [(1966) 244 Cal.App.2d 474 [ 53 Cal.Rptr. 156 ]], most recently held that there is no right to appeal from an order rejecting a probate claim. 1974The statute is exclusive ( Estate of Bissinger, 60 Cal.2d 756, 759 [ 36 Cal. Rptr. 450 , 388 P.2d 682 , 19 A.L.R.3d 506 ]; Orth v. Superior Court, 244 Cal. App.2d 474 [ 53 Cal. Rptr. 156 , 25 A.L.R.3d 1348 ]), and much narrower in its scope than Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1. (6 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (2d ed.) Appeal, § 95.) Neither an order overruling objections to an account nor an order rejecting a claim are specifically mentioned in the statute. (8) Estate of O'Connor, 200 Cal. 646 [ 254 P. 269 ], held that an order overruling objections was not appealable, and Estate of Middleton,	3	1974–2007
Orth v. Superior Court green calctapp · 1966 2 sentences 1974The statute is exclusive (Estate of Bissinger, 60 Cal.2d 756, 759 [ 36 Cal.Rptr. 450 , 388 P.2d 682 , 19 A.L.R.3d 506 ]; Orth v. Superior Court, 244 Cal.App.2d 474 [ 53 Cal.Rptr. 156 , 25 A.L.R.3d 1348 ]), and much narrower in its scope than Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1. (6 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (2d ed.) Appeal, § 95.) Neither an order overruling objections to an account nor an order rejecting a claim are specifically mentioned in the statute. 1974The statute is exclusive (Estate of Bissinger, 60 Cal.2d 756, 759 [ 36 Cal.Rptr. 450 , 388 P.2d 682 , 19 A.L.R.3d 506 ]; Orth v. Superior Court, 244 Cal.App.2d 474 [ 53 Cal.Rptr. 156 , 25 A.L.R.3d 1348 ]), and much narrower in its scope than Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1. (6 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (2d ed.) Appeal, § 95.) Neither an order overruling objections to an account nor an order rejecting a claim are specifically mentioned in the statute.	3	1974–2007
Estate of Middleton green calctapp · 1963 2 sentences 2007Estate of Middleton [(1963)] 215 Cal.App.2d 324 [ 30 Cal.Rptr. 155 ], and Orth v. Superior Court [(1966) 244 Cal.App.2d 474 [ 53 Cal.Rptr. 156 ]], most recently held that there is no right to appeal from an order rejecting a probate claim. 1974The statute is exclusive ( Estate of Bissinger, 60 Cal.2d 756, 759 [ 36 Cal. Rptr. 450 , 388 P.2d 682 , 19 A.L.R.3d 506 ]; Orth v. Superior Court, 244 Cal. App.2d 474 [ 53 Cal. Rptr. 156 , 25 A.L.R.3d 1348 ]), and much narrower in its scope than Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1. (6 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (2d ed.) Appeal, § 95.) Neither an order overruling objections to an account nor an order rejecting a claim are specifically mentioned in the statute. (8) Estate of O'Connor, 200 Cal. 646 [ 254 P. 269 ], held that an order overruling objections was not appealable, and Estate of Middleton,	2	1974–2007
Estate of O'Connor green cal · 1927 2 sentences 1974The statute is exclusive ( Estate of Bissinger, 60 Cal.2d 756, 759 [ 36 Cal. Rptr. 450 , 388 P.2d 682 , 19 A.L.R.3d 506 ]; Orth v. Superior Court, 244 Cal. App.2d 474 [ 53 Cal. Rptr. 156 , 25 A.L.R.3d 1348 ]), and much narrower in its scope than Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1. (6 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (2d ed.) Appeal, § 95.) Neither an order overruling objections to an account nor an order rejecting a claim are specifically mentioned in the statute. (8) Estate of O'Connor, 200 Cal. 646 [ 254 P. 269 ], held that an order overruling objections was not appealable, and Estate of Middleton, 1974The statute is exclusive ( Estate of Bissinger, 60 Cal.2d 756, 759 [ 36 Cal. Rptr. 450 , 388 P.2d 682 , 19 A.L.R.3d 506 ]; Orth v. Superior Court, 244 Cal. App.2d 474 [ 53 Cal. Rptr. 156 , 25 A.L.R.3d 1348 ]), and much narrower in its scope than Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1. (6 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (2d ed.) Appeal, § 95.) Neither an order overruling objections to an account nor an order rejecting a claim are specifically mentioned in the statute. (8) Estate of O'Connor, 200 Cal. 646 [ 254 P. 269 ], held that an order overruling objections was not appealable, and Estate of Middleton,	2	1974–1974
In Re IW green calctapp · 2009 1 sentence 2014(Bailey J., supra, 189 Cal.App.4th at p. 1314 .) Because the parent or other proponent had the burden of proving the exceptions to adoption, the precise question for a reviewing court on a parent’s appeal from an order rejecting an exception is “whether the evidence compels a finding in favor of the appellant as a matter of law.” (Id. at p. 1314; In re I.W. (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 1517, 1528 .) As to whether the existence of a bond between the parents or siblings is so strong that the child would suffer detriment from its termination, that decision is “a ‘quintessentially’ discretionary decisio	1	2014–2014
Santa Clara County Department of Family & Children's Services v. Patricia J. green calctapp · 2010 2 sentences 2014(Bailey J., supra, 189 Cal.App.4th at p. 1314 .) Because the parent or other proponent had the burden of proving the exceptions to adoption, the precise question for a reviewing court on a parent’s appeal from an order rejecting an exception is “whether the evidence compels a finding in favor of the appellant as a matter of law.” (Id. at p. 1314; In re I.W. (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 1517, 1528 .) As to whether the existence of a bond between the parents or siblings is so strong that the child would suffer detriment from its termination, that decision is “a ‘quintessentially’ discretionary decisio 2014(Bailey J., supra, 189 Cal.App.4th at p. 1314 .) Because the parent or other proponent had the burden of proving the exceptions to adoption, the precise question for a reviewing court on a parent’s appeal from an order rejecting an exception is “whether the evidence compels a finding in favor of the appellant as a matter of law.” (Id. at p. 1314; In re I.W. (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 1517, 1528 .) As to whether the existence of a bond between the parents or siblings is so strong that the child would suffer detriment from its termination, that decision is “a ‘quintessentially’ discretionary decisio	1	2014–2014
Miller v. California Trust Co. green calctapp · 1936 1 sentence 2007There is no provision in section 1240 of the Probate Code permitting an appeal from an order rejecting a claim in whole or in part, and the Supreme Court has said: ‘Where, as here, there has been a partial rejection of the claim, the only recourse of the dissatisfied creditor is a suit. [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (Miller, supra, 15 Cal.App.2d at p. 616 .) An order in which the trial court approves or rejects a probate creditor’s claim brought by a personal representative is entirely different from the court ordering or refusing to order payment of a debt, claim, or cost.	1	2007–2007
Molinari v. Aponte neutral prsupreme · 1908 1 sentence 1929(In re Sullenberger, 72 Cal. 549, 552 [ 14 Pac. 513 ].) The evidence was sufficient to support the order rejecting the claim.	1	1929–1929

Where else courts name it

FL 10 (1958–2012) CA 6 (1929–2014) MD 5 (1990–2024) WA 3 (1938–1946) MN 3 (1993–1999) NM 2 (1945–1951) IL 2 (1887–1903)

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