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 2006–2022 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Stangvik v. Shiley Inc.
green
2 sentences2022While the public and private factors must be applied flexibly without giving undue emphasis to one factor (Stangvik v. Shiley, Inc., supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 753 ), any emphasis the trial court placed on the interpleaded funds was not undue. 2006Plaintiffs also contended that the public and private factors set forth in Stangvik, supra, 54 Cal.3d 744 , did not weigh heavily against California as the appropriate forum. | 5 | 2006–2022 |
Hansen v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp.
green
1 sentence2022(Stangvik, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 751 .) In conducting an abuse of discretion review, appellate courts ask whether the determination is “within the range of options available under governing legal criteria in light of the evidence before [the trial court].” (Hansen v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 753, 758 , disagreed with on other grounds in National Football League v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Morris v. AGFA CORP.
green
1 sentence2022(Diaz-Barba v. Superior Court (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 1470, 1483 ; Morris v. AGFA Corp. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1452, 1464 .) In contrast, the second step of weighing and balancing the public and private factors involves the exercise of discretion and, as a result, appellate courts give “substantial deference” to the trial court’s determination. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Diaz-Barba v. Superior Court of San Diego County
green
1 sentence2022(Diaz-Barba v. Superior Court (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 1470, 1483 ; Morris v. AGFA Corp. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1452, 1464 .) In contrast, the second step of weighing and balancing the public and private factors involves the exercise of discretion and, as a result, appellate courts give “substantial deference” to the trial court’s determination. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Archibald v. Cinerama Hotels
green
1 sentence2021The California Supreme Court has explained that “[t]he trial court retains a flexible power to consider and weigh all factors relevant to determining which forum is the more convenient . . . .” (Archibald v. Cinerama Hotels, supra, 15 Cal.3d at p. 860 .) The “private and public interest factors must be applied flexibly, 11 without giving undue emphasis to any one element” and no court should decide there are circumstances in which the doctrine will always apply or never apply. | 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.