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 2015–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bains v. Mooresgreen1 sentence2026(Bains, supra, 172 Cal.App.4th at p. 455 [appellant from a summary judgment ruling must “point out the triable 21 issues the appellant claims are present by citation to the record and any supporting authority”].) Accordingly, we conclude that Zappala had not demonstrated that the trial court erred in granting GEICO judgment as a matter of law on Zappala’s causes of action for retaliation for seeking medical leave. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Denham v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences2018(See Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557 , 564, 86 Cal.Rptr. 65 , 468 P.2d 193 .) B. 2018(See Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557 , 564, 86 Cal.Rptr. 65 , 468 P.2d 193 .) B. | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Maria P. v. Riles
green
1 sentence2023(Maria P. v. Riles (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1281, 1295-1296 .) She has not done so here. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Ayala
green
1 sentence2016He has thus failed to satisfy his duty to provide a record demonstrating error affirmatively (Foust v. San Jose Construction Co., Inc. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 181, 187 ), and we will not reverse an order based on mere conjecture (People v. Ayala (2000) 24 Cal.4th 243, 267 ). 9 2.2 The Special Conditions of Probation Referenced in the Order of Probation and the Clerk’s Minute Order Are Invalid In contrast with the general conditions of probation, neither the trial court nor the parties had any discussion about the inclusion of special conditions of probation beyond the legal consequences of defe | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Foust v. San Jose Construction Co.
green
1 sentence2016He has thus failed to satisfy his duty to provide a record demonstrating error affirmatively (Foust v. San Jose Construction Co., Inc. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 181, 187 ), and we will not reverse an order based on mere conjecture (People v. Ayala (2000) 24 Cal.4th 243, 267 ). 9 2.2 The Special Conditions of Probation Referenced in the Order of Probation and the Clerk’s Minute Order Are Invalid In contrast with the general conditions of probation, neither the trial court nor the parties had any discussion about the inclusion of special conditions of probation beyond the legal consequences of defe | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Bullock v. Phillip Morris USA, Inc.
green
1 sentence2015(Bullock, supra, 159 Cal.App.4th at p. 678 .) C. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.