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 1956–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re Rashad B.green1 sentence2023(Cf. A.H., supra, 218 Cal.App.4th at p. 347 ; In re Rashad B. (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 442, 450 (Rashad B.).) Mother relies on In re Cathina W. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 716 (Cathina W.), which held that the mother’s failure to seek writ review was excused by the juvenile court’s multiple errors in providing the advisement, including belated mailing, misadvising the mother of the deadline to seek writ review, and failing to re-send the advisement after it was returned to the court with a new forwarding address for the mother. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Baldwingreen1 sentence2015We find equally unavailing Rodriguez’s belated reliance on Evidence Code section 1202 and People v. Baldwin (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 991, 1003 (Baldwin), overruled in part by People v. Black (2014) 58 Cal.4th 912, 919 .) Evidence Code section 1202 provides in pertinent part that “[e]vidence of a statement or other conduct by a declarant that is inconsistent with a statement by such declarant received in evidence as hearsay evidence is not inadmissible for the purpose of attacking the credibility of the declarant though he is not given and has not had an opportunity to explain or to deny such inc | 1 | 1 |
Doyle v. City of Chinogreen2 sentences2002(Giuffre v. Sparks (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 1322, 1330 [ 91 Cal.Rptr.2d 171 ]; Runyan v. Ellis (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 961, 966 [ 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 356 ]; Stanton v. City of West Sacramento, supra, 226 Cal.App.3d at p. 1443 ; Doyle v. City of Chino, supra, 117 Cal.App.3d at p. 679.) There also is little doubt that the result of any hearing required by Government Code section 3304, subdivision (b), is subject to review by way of a writ of administrative mandate under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 (see Doyle v. City of Chino, supra, 117 Cal.App.3d at p. 680) and that Code of Civil Procedure sec 2002(Giuffre v. Sparks (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 1322, 1330 [ 91 Cal.Rptr.2d 171 ]; Runyan v. Ellis (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 961, 966 [ 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 356 ]; Stanton v. City of West Sacramento, supra, 226 Cal.App.3d at p. 1443 ; Doyle v. City of Chino, supra, 117 Cal.App.3d at p. 679.) There also is little doubt that the result of any hearing required by Government Code section 3304, subdivision (b), is subject to review by way of a writ of administrative mandate under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 (see Doyle v. City of Chino, supra, 117 Cal.App.3d at p. 680) and that Code of Civil Procedure sec | 1 | 1 |
City of Fairfield v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2002(Giuffre v. Sparks (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 1322, 1330 [ 91 Cal.Rptr.2d 171 ]; Runyan v. Ellis (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 961, 966 [ 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 356 ]; Stanton v. City of West Sacramento, supra, 226 Cal.App.3d at p. 1443 ; Doyle v. City of Chino, supra, 117 Cal.App.3d at p. 679.) There also is little doubt that the result of any hearing required by Government Code section 3304, subdivision (b), is subject to review by way of a writ of administrative mandate under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 (see Doyle v. City of Chino, supra, 117 Cal.App.3d at p. 680) and that Code of Civil Procedure sec 2002(Giuffre v. Sparks (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 1322, 1330 [ 91 Cal.Rptr.2d 171 ]; Runyan v. Ellis (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 961, 966 [ 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 356 ]; Stanton v. City of West Sacramento, supra, 226 Cal.App.3d at p. 1443 ; Doyle v. City of Chino, supra, 117 Cal.App.3d at p. 679.) There also is little doubt that the result of any hearing required by Government Code section 3304, subdivision (b), is subject to review by way of a writ of administrative mandate under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 (see Doyle v. City of Chino, supra, 117 Cal.App.3d at p. 680) and that Code of Civil Procedure sec | 1 | 1 |
Giuffre v. Sparksgreen2 sentences2002(Giuffre v. Sparks (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 1322, 1330 [ 91 Cal.Rptr.2d 171 ]; Runyan v. Ellis (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 961, 966 [ 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 356 ]; Stanton v. City of West Sacramento, supra, 226 Cal.App.3d at p. 1443 ; Doyle v. City of Chino, supra, 117 Cal.App.3d at p. 679.) There also is little doubt that the result of any hearing required by Government Code section 3304, subdivision (b), is subject to review by way of a writ of administrative mandate under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 (see Doyle v. City of Chino, supra, 117 Cal.App.3d at p. 680) and that Code of Civil Procedure sec 2002(Giuffre v. Sparks (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 1322, 1330 [ 91 Cal.Rptr.2d 171 ]; Runyan v. Ellis (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 961, 966 [ 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 356 ]; Stanton v. City of West Sacramento, supra, 226 Cal.App.3d at p. 1443 ; Doyle v. City of Chino, supra, 117 Cal.App.3d at p. 679.) There also is little doubt that the result of any hearing required by Government Code section 3304, subdivision (b), is subject to review by way of a writ of administrative mandate under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 (see Doyle v. City of Chino, supra, 117 Cal.App.3d at p. 680) and that Code of Civil Procedure sec | 1 | 1 |
Runyan v. Ellisgreen2 sentences2002(Giuffre v. Sparks (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 1322, 1330 [ 91 Cal.Rptr.2d 171 ]; Runyan v. Ellis (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 961, 966 [ 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 356 ]; Stanton v. City of West Sacramento, supra, 226 Cal.App.3d at p. 1443 ; Doyle v. City of Chino, supra, 117 Cal.App.3d at p. 679.) There also is little doubt that the result of any hearing required by Government Code section 3304, subdivision (b), is subject to review by way of a writ of administrative mandate under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 (see Doyle v. City of Chino, supra, 117 Cal.App.3d at p. 680) and that Code of Civil Procedure sec 2002(Giuffre v. Sparks (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 1322, 1330 [ 91 Cal.Rptr.2d 171 ]; Runyan v. Ellis (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 961, 966 [ 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 356 ]; Stanton v. City of West Sacramento, supra, 226 Cal.App.3d at p. 1443 ; Doyle v. City of Chino, supra, 117 Cal.App.3d at p. 679.) There also is little doubt that the result of any hearing required by Government Code section 3304, subdivision (b), is subject to review by way of a writ of administrative mandate under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 (see Doyle v. City of Chino, supra, 117 Cal.App.3d at p. 680) and that Code of Civil Procedure sec | 1 | 1 |
Speck v. Sarvergreen2 sentences1956In either event, the jury, in determining whether the plaintiff was guilty of negligence, would look to and be governed by the evidence before the court, and not by any presumption. ’ In view of the foregoing, the giving of the instruction complained of was error.” And in the recent case of Gigliotti v. Nunes, 45 Cal.2d 85 , the court said at page 93 [ 286 P.2d 809 ]: “Although there is no room for the presumption where the driver or other person whose claimed negligence is at issue himself testifies to his actions at the time involved (see Speck v. Sarver (1942), 20 Cal.2d 585, 587-588 [ 128 1956In either event, the jury, in determining whether the plaintiff was guilty of negligence, would look to and be governed by the evidence before the court, and not by any presumption. ’ In view of the foregoing, the giving of the instruction complained of was error.” And in the recent case of Gigliotti v. Nunes, 45 Cal.2d 85 , the court said at page 93 [ 286 P.2d 809 ]: “Although there is no room for the presumption where the driver or other person whose claimed negligence is at issue himself testifies to his actions at the time involved (see Speck v. Sarver (1942), 20 Cal.2d 585, 587-588 [ 128 | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cathina W. v. Bessie W.
green
1 sentence2023(Cf. A.H., supra, 218 Cal.App.4th at p. 347 ; In re Rashad B. (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 442, 450 (Rashad B.).) Mother relies on In re Cathina W. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 716 (Cathina W.), which held that the mother’s failure to seek writ review was excused by the juvenile court’s multiple errors in providing the advisement, including belated mailing, misadvising the mother of the deadline to seek writ review, and failing to re-send the advisement after it was returned to the court with a new forwarding address for the mother. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Santa Clara County Department of Family & Children's Services v. F.S.
green
1 sentence2023(Cf. A.H., supra, 218 Cal.App.4th at p. 347 ; In re Rashad B. (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 442, 450 (Rashad B.).) Mother relies on In re Cathina W. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 716 (Cathina W.), which held that the mother’s failure to seek writ review was excused by the juvenile court’s multiple errors in providing the advisement, including belated mailing, misadvising the mother of the deadline to seek writ review, and failing to re-send the advisement after it was returned to the court with a new forwarding address for the mother. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Black
green
1 sentence2015We find equally unavailing Rodriguez’s belated reliance on Evidence Code section 1202 and People v. Baldwin (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 991, 1003 (Baldwin), overruled in part by People v. Black (2014) 58 Cal.4th 912, 919 .) Evidence Code section 1202 provides in pertinent part that “[e]vidence of a statement or other conduct by a declarant that is inconsistent with a statement by such declarant received in evidence as hearsay evidence is not inadmissible for the purpose of attacking the credibility of the declarant though he is not given and has not had an opportunity to explain or to deny such inc | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Scheenstra v. California Dairies, Inc.
green
1 sentence2014(Scheenstra v. California Dairies, Inc. (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 370, 403 .) Even assuming it was error to grant summary judgment in favor of Wells Fargo, plaintiffs suffered no prejudice as a result of that error. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Stanton v. City of West Sacramento
green
1 sentence2002(Giuffre v. Sparks (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 1322, 1330 [ 91 Cal.Rptr.2d 171 ]; Runyan v. Ellis (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 961, 966 [ 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 356 ]; Stanton v. City of West Sacramento, supra, 226 Cal.App.3d at p. 1443 ; Doyle v. City of Chino, supra, 117 Cal.App.3d at p. 679.) There also is little doubt that the result of any hearing required by Government Code section 3304, subdivision (b), is subject to review by way of a writ of administrative mandate under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 (see Doyle v. City of Chino, supra, 117 Cal.App.3d at p. 680) and that Code of Civil Procedure sec | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Weidenfeller v. Star & Garter
green
2 sentences1994In particular, when the events giving rise to this case took place, regulation 30-342 required monthly visits to be made to the home where each child is placed, subject to specific exceptions which are set forth in the regulation. 2 Regulation 30-342, its successor regulation 31-320, and other regulations applicable to this case are regulations duly promulgated by the DSS pursuant to section 16501 of the Welfare and Institutions Code and impose mandatory duties upon local agencies. 3 We therefore hold that public entities are liable under section 815.6 of the Government Code for injuries to ch 1994In particular, when the events giving rise to this case took place, regulation 30-342 required monthly visits to be made to the home where each child is placed, subject to specific exceptions which are set forth in the regulation. 2 Regulation 30-342, its successor regulation 31-320, and other regulations applicable to this case are regulations duly promulgated by the DSS pursuant to section 16501 of the Welfare and Institutions Code and impose mandatory duties upon local agencies. 3 We therefore hold that public entities are liable under section 815.6 of the Government Code for injuries to ch | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Gigliotti v. Nunes
green
2 sentences1956In either event, the jury, in determining whether the plaintiff was guilty of negligence, would look to and be governed by the evidence before the court, and not by any presumption. ’ In view of the foregoing, the giving of the instruction complained of was error.” And in the recent case of Gigliotti v. Nunes, 45 Cal.2d 85 , the court said at page 93 [ 286 P.2d 809 ]: “Although there is no room for the presumption where the driver or other person whose claimed negligence is at issue himself testifies to his actions at the time involved (see Speck v. Sarver (1942), 20 Cal.2d 585, 587-588 [ 128 1956In either event, the jury, in determining whether the plaintiff was guilty of negligence, would look to and be governed by the evidence before the court, and not by any presumption. ’ In view of the foregoing, the giving of the instruction complained of was error.” And in the recent case of Gigliotti v. Nunes, 45 Cal.2d 85 , the court said at page 93 [ 286 P.2d 809 ]: “Although there is no room for the presumption where the driver or other person whose claimed negligence is at issue himself testifies to his actions at the time involved (see Speck v. Sarver (1942), 20 Cal.2d 585, 587-588 [ 128 | 1 | 1956–1956 |
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.