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 2006–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
Miller v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2017(City of Lincoln v. Barringer, supra, 102 Cal.App.4th 1211, 1239, fn. 16 [ 126 Cal.Rptr.2d 178 ]; Miller v. Superior Court (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 728, 743 [ 124 Cal.Rptr.2d 591 ] [failure to cite to the record waives the claim of error].) VI “Fallacy” in Referring to Other Owners of the Project Southam claims mathematical errors favored nearby landowners at its expense. 2017(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(C); Miller v. Superior Court (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 728, 743 [failure to cite to the record waives the claim of error].) The argument is also forfeited for lack of any analysis in her opening brief as to how the alleged evidentiary errors were prejudicial. | 5 | 5 |
City of Lincoln v. Barringergreen2 sentences2017(City of Lincoln v. Barringer, supra, 102 Cal.App.4th 1211, 1239, fn. 16 [ 126 Cal.Rptr.2d 178 ]; Miller v. Superior Court (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 728, 743 [ 124 Cal.Rptr.2d 591 ] [failure to cite to the record waives the claim of error].) VI “Fallacy” in Referring to Other Owners of the Project Southam claims mathematical errors favored nearby landowners at its expense. 2017(City of Lincoln v. Barringer, supra, 102 Cal.App.4th 1211, 1239, fn. 16 [ 126 Cal.Rptr.2d 178 ]; Miller v. Superior Court (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 728, 743 [ 124 Cal.Rptr.2d 591 ] [failure to cite to the record waives the claim of error].) VI “Fallacy” in Referring to Other Owners of the Project Southam claims mathematical errors favored nearby landowners at its expense. | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re Marriage of Falcone & Fyke
green
1 sentence2021(Falcone, supra, 164 Cal.App.4th at p. 830 .) Even if we were to consider the claim, the trial court determined that the property on which she put the down payment was no longer in existence because of the short sale, which resulted in no money being taken out of the Anaheim Hills house. “[Family Code s]ection 2640 provides a limited reimbursement of separate property contributions as part of the division of the community estate under the Family Code. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Shaw v. County of Santa Cruz
green
1 sentence2017An appellant has the burden to “demonstrate how any claim of error in the trial court‟s exclusion of evidence would have made any difference in the outcome.” (Shaw v. County of Santa Cruz (2008) 170 Cal.App.4th 229, 282 .) Although Lemke‟s reply brief purports to demonstrate prejudice, an argument may not be raised for the first time in a reply. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
In Re SC
green
1 sentence2014(In re S.C., supra, 138 Cal.App.4th at p. 408 ; Atchley v. City of Fresno (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 635, 647 .) IV Whether Sutter Medical Presented Sufficient Evidence to Negate Claims of Defamation and Breach of Contract In an argument titled, “Admissible Evidence # 37,” Schaffron appears to contend Sutter Medical presented insufficient evidence to negate her claims of defamation and breach of contract. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Atchley v. City of Fresno
green
1 sentence2014(In re S.C., supra, 138 Cal.App.4th at p. 408 ; Atchley v. City of Fresno (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 635, 647 .) IV Whether Sutter Medical Presented Sufficient Evidence to Negate Claims of Defamation and Breach of Contract In an argument titled, “Admissible Evidence # 37,” Schaffron appears to contend Sutter Medical presented insufficient evidence to negate her claims of defamation and breach of contract. | 1 | 2014–2014 |