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 2 courts 1996–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Marsh v. Mountain Zephyr, Inc.green2 sentences2023The first exception permits an appeal of an “order . . . against a party in a collateral proceeding growing out of the action.” (Sjoberg v. Hastorf (1948) 33 Cal.2d 116, 119 .) This exception, known as the “collateral order doctrine,” applies if the issue underlying the order seeking to be appealed “is truly collateral in that it is ‘distinct and severable’ from the subject matter of the underlying litigation.” (Apex LLC v. Korusfood.com (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 1010, 1016 .) The order seeking to be appealed must also “direct[ ] payment of money or performance of an act.” (Id. at p. 1015; see al 2020The first exception permits an appeal of an “order . . . against a party in a collateral proceeding growing out of the action.” (Sjoberg v. Hastorf (1948) 33 Cal.2d 116, 119 .) This exception, known as the “collateral order doctrine,” applies if the issue underlying the order seeking to be appealed “is truly collateral in that it is ‘distinct and severable’ from the subject matter of the underlying litigation. [Citation.]” (Apex LLC v. Korusfood.com (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 1010, 1016 .) The order seeking to be appealed must also “direct[ ] payment of money or performance of an act.” (Id. at p. | 2 | 2 |
MacHado v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2017However, the appeal in the instant case is from an order granting disqualification of counsel, which compels the party to hire a new attorney, "an act which satisfies the Sjoberg test." ( Machado , at p. 882, 55 Cal.Rptr.3d 902 ; but see Truck Ins. 2017However, the appeal in the instant case is from an order granting disqualification of counsel, which compels the party to hire a new attorney, "an act which satisfies the Sjoberg test." ( Machado , at p. 882, 55 Cal.Rptr.3d 902 ; but see Truck Ins. | 1 | 1 |
Lester v. Lennanegreen2 sentences2014In Lechowick and Keisha T., non-party 2 In Lester v. Lennane (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 536, 561-562 (Lester), the appellate court concluded that some cases have incorrectly interpreted a subsequent California Supreme Court case, Meehan v. Hopps (1955) 45 Cal.2d 213 (Meehan), as changing the Sjoberg rule to allow interlocutory orders to be appealed despite the failure to direct the payment of money or the performance of an act. 2014In Lechowick and Keisha T., non-party 2 In Lester v. Lennane (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 536, 561-562 (Lester), the appellate court concluded that some cases have incorrectly interpreted a subsequent California Supreme Court case, Meehan v. Hopps (1955) 45 Cal.2d 213 (Meehan), as changing the Sjoberg rule to allow interlocutory orders to be appealed despite the failure to direct the payment of money or the performance of an act. | 1 | 1 |
Reich v. Club Universegreen2 sentences2007(E.g., Reich v. Club Universe (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 965, 967 [ 178 Cal.Rptr. 473 ] (Reich) [order “required the named plaintiff ... to substitute another attorney for the class”].) It does not appear that Meehan, supra, 45 Cal.2d 213 , considered a case where the *883 motion was denied: “A careful reading of the Meehan decision convinces us that as to the second ground upon which the court found appealability, it was concerned only with the question of collaterality and finality. 2007(E.g., Reich v. Club Universe (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 965, 967 [ 178 Cal.Rptr. 473 ] (Reich) [order “required the named plaintiff ... to substitute another attorney for the class”].) It does not appear that Meehan, supra, 45 Cal.2d 213 , considered a case where the *883 motion was denied: “A careful reading of the Meehan decision convinces us that as to the second ground upon which the court found appealability, it was concerned only with the question of collaterality and finality. | 1 | 1 |
Truck Insurance Exchange v. Fireman's Fund Insurancegreen2 sentences2007Co. (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1050, 1052-1053 [ 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 228 ] (Truck).) Granting a disqualification motion compels the party to hire a new attorney, an act which satisfies the Sjoberg test. 2007Co. (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1050, 1052-1053 [ 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 228 ] (Truck).) Granting a disqualification motion compels the party to hire a new attorney, an act which satisfies the Sjoberg test. | 1 | 1 |
Trimble v. Steinfeldtgreen2 sentences1996Although there appears to be a division of opinion and split of authority on the necessity of complying with the third element of the Sjoberg test (compare Samuel v. Stevedoring Services (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 414, 417-418 [ 29 Cal.Rptr.2d 420 ]; and International Typographical Union etc. Pension Plan v. Ad Compositors, Inc. (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 733, 735 [ 191 Cal.Rptr. 227 ] with Henneberque v. City of Culver City, supra, 172 Cal.App.3d at p. 841 , fn. 3 and cases cited; and Trimble v. Steinfeldt (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 646, 649, 650 [ 224 Cal.Rptr. 195 ]), we are of the opinion that the third 1996Although there appears to be a division of opinion and split of authority on the necessity of complying with the third element of the Sjoberg test (compare Samuel v. Stevedoring Services (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 414, 417-418 [ 29 Cal.Rptr.2d 420 ]; and International Typographical Union etc. Pension Plan v. Ad Compositors, Inc. (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 733, 735 [ 191 Cal.Rptr. 227 ] with Henneberque v. City of Culver City, supra, 172 Cal.App.3d at p. 841 , fn. 3 and cases cited; and Trimble v. Steinfeldt (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 646, 649, 650 [ 224 Cal.Rptr. 195 ]), we are of the opinion that the third | 1 | 1 |
Samuel v. Stevedoring Services of Americagreen2 sentences1996Although there appears to be a division of opinion and split of authority on the necessity of complying with the third element of the Sjoberg test (compare Samuel v. Stevedoring Services (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 414, 417-418 [ 29 Cal.Rptr.2d 420 ]; and International Typographical Union etc. Pension Plan v. Ad Compositors, Inc. (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 733, 735 [ 191 Cal.Rptr. 227 ] with Henneberque v. City of Culver City, supra, 172 Cal.App.3d at p. 841 , fn. 3 and cases cited; and Trimble v. Steinfeldt (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 646, 649, 650 [ 224 Cal.Rptr. 195 ]), we are of the opinion that the third 1996Although there appears to be a division of opinion and split of authority on the necessity of complying with the third element of the Sjoberg test (compare Samuel v. Stevedoring Services (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 414, 417-418 [ 29 Cal.Rptr.2d 420 ]; and International Typographical Union etc. Pension Plan v. Ad Compositors, Inc. (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 733, 735 [ 191 Cal.Rptr. 227 ] with Henneberque v. City of Culver City, supra, 172 Cal.App.3d at p. 841 , fn. 3 and cases cited; and Trimble v. Steinfeldt (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 646, 649, 650 [ 224 Cal.Rptr. 195 ]), we are of the opinion that the third | 1 | 1 |
International Typographical Union Negotiated Pension Plan v. Ad Compositors, Inc.green2 sentences1996Although there appears to be a division of opinion and split of authority on the necessity of complying with the third element of the Sjoberg test (compare Samuel v. Stevedoring Services (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 414, 417-418 [ 29 Cal.Rptr.2d 420 ]; and International Typographical Union etc. Pension Plan v. Ad Compositors, Inc. (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 733, 735 [ 191 Cal.Rptr. 227 ] with Henneberque v. City of Culver City, supra, 172 Cal.App.3d at p. 841 , fn. 3 and cases cited; and Trimble v. Steinfeldt (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 646, 649, 650 [ 224 Cal.Rptr. 195 ]), we are of the opinion that the third 1996Although there appears to be a division of opinion and split of authority on the necessity of complying with the third element of the Sjoberg test (compare Samuel v. Stevedoring Services (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 414, 417-418 [ 29 Cal.Rptr.2d 420 ]; and International Typographical Union etc. Pension Plan v. Ad Compositors, Inc. (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 733, 735 [ 191 Cal.Rptr. 227 ] with Henneberque v. City of Culver City, supra, 172 Cal.App.3d at p. 841 , fn. 3 and cases cited; and Trimble v. Steinfeldt (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 646, 649, 650 [ 224 Cal.Rptr. 195 ]), we are of the opinion that the third | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Muller v. Fresno Community Hospital & Medical Centergreen2 sentences2023The first exception permits an appeal of an “order . . . against a party in a collateral proceeding growing out of the action.” (Sjoberg v. Hastorf (1948) 33 Cal.2d 116, 119 .) This exception, known as the “collateral order doctrine,” applies if the issue underlying the order seeking to be appealed “is truly collateral in that it is ‘distinct and severable’ from the subject matter of the underlying litigation.” (Apex LLC v. Korusfood.com (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 1010, 1016 .) The order seeking to be appealed must also “direct[ ] payment of money or performance of an act.” (Id. at p. 1015; see al 2020The first exception permits an appeal of an “order . . . against a party in a collateral proceeding growing out of the action.” (Sjoberg v. Hastorf (1948) 33 Cal.2d 116, 119 .) This exception, known as the “collateral order doctrine,” applies if the issue underlying the order seeking to be appealed “is truly collateral in that it is ‘distinct and severable’ from the subject matter of the underlying litigation. [Citation.]” (Apex LLC v. Korusfood.com (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 1010, 1016 .) The order seeking to be appealed must also “direct[ ] payment of money or performance of an act.” (Id. at p. | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Sjoberg v. Hastorf
green
2 sentences2023The first exception permits an appeal of an “order . . . against a party in a collateral proceeding growing out of the action.” (Sjoberg v. Hastorf (1948) 33 Cal.2d 116, 119 .) This exception, known as the “collateral order doctrine,” applies if the issue underlying the order seeking to be appealed “is truly collateral in that it is ‘distinct and severable’ from the subject matter of the underlying litigation.” (Apex LLC v. Korusfood.com (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 1010, 1016 .) The order seeking to be appealed must also “direct[ ] payment of money or performance of an act.” (Id. at p. 1015; see al 2020The first exception permits an appeal of an “order . . . against a party in a collateral proceeding growing out of the action.” (Sjoberg v. Hastorf (1948) 33 Cal.2d 116, 119 .) This exception, known as the “collateral order doctrine,” applies if the issue underlying the order seeking to be appealed “is truly collateral in that it is ‘distinct and severable’ from the subject matter of the underlying litigation. [Citation.]” (Apex LLC v. Korusfood.com (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 1010, 1016 .) The order seeking to be appealed must also “direct[ ] payment of money or performance of an act.” (Id. at p. | 2 | 2020–2023 |
Apex LLC v. Korusfood.com
green
2 sentences2023The first exception permits an appeal of an “order . . . against a party in a collateral proceeding growing out of the action.” (Sjoberg v. Hastorf (1948) 33 Cal.2d 116, 119 .) This exception, known as the “collateral order doctrine,” applies if the issue underlying the order seeking to be appealed “is truly collateral in that it is ‘distinct and severable’ from the subject matter of the underlying litigation.” (Apex LLC v. Korusfood.com (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 1010, 1016 .) The order seeking to be appealed must also “direct[ ] payment of money or performance of an act.” (Id. at p. 1015; see al 2020The first exception permits an appeal of an “order . . . against a party in a collateral proceeding growing out of the action.” (Sjoberg v. Hastorf (1948) 33 Cal.2d 116, 119 .) This exception, known as the “collateral order doctrine,” applies if the issue underlying the order seeking to be appealed “is truly collateral in that it is ‘distinct and severable’ from the subject matter of the underlying litigation. [Citation.]” (Apex LLC v. Korusfood.com (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 1010, 1016 .) The order seeking to be appealed must also “direct[ ] payment of money or performance of an act.” (Id. at p. | 2 | 2020–2023 |
Meehan v. Hopps
green
2 sentences2014In Lechowick and Keisha T., non-party 2 In Lester v. Lennane (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 536, 561-562 (Lester), the appellate court concluded that some cases have incorrectly interpreted a subsequent California Supreme Court case, Meehan v. Hopps (1955) 45 Cal.2d 213 (Meehan), as changing the Sjoberg rule to allow interlocutory orders to be appealed despite the failure to direct the payment of money or the performance of an act. 2014In Lechowick and Keisha T., non-party 2 In Lester v. Lennane (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 536, 561-562 (Lester), the appellate court concluded that some cases have incorrectly interpreted a subsequent California Supreme Court case, Meehan v. Hopps (1955) 45 Cal.2d 213 (Meehan), as changing the Sjoberg rule to allow interlocutory orders to be appealed despite the failure to direct the payment of money or the performance of an act. | 2 | 2007–2014 |
Conservatorship of Rich
green
2 sentences2014(Conservatorship of Rich [(1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1233 ,] 1236-1237 [ 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 459 ]; Efron v. Kalmanovitz [(I960) 185 Cal.App.2d 149 ,] 155 [ 8 Cal.Rptr. 107 ] [explaining that order in Meehan was appealable by statute because it denied injunctive relief (Code Civ. 2014(Conservatorship of Rich [(1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1233 ,] 1236-1237 [ 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 459 ]; Efron v. Kalmanovitz [(I960) 185 Cal.App.2d 149 ,] 155 [ 8 Cal.Rptr. 107 ] [explaining that order in Meehan was appealable by statute because it denied injunctive relief (Code Civ. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Efron v. Kalmanovitz
green
2 sentences2014(Conservatorship of Rich [(1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1223 ,] 1236-1237; Efron v. Kalmanovitz [(1960) 185 Cal.App.2d 149 ,] 155 [explaining that order in Meehan was appealable by statute because it denied injunctive relief (Code Civ. 2014(Conservatorship of Rich [(1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1233 ,] 1236-1237 [ 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 459 ]; Efron v. Kalmanovitz [(I960) 185 Cal.App.2d 149 ,] 155 [ 8 Cal.Rptr. 107 ] [explaining that order in Meehan was appealable by statute because it denied injunctive relief (Code Civ. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Henneberque v. City of Culver City
green
2 sentences1996Although there appears to be a division of opinion and split of authority on the necessity of complying with the third element of the Sjoberg test (compare Samuel v. Stevedoring Services (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 414, 417-418 [ 29 Cal.Rptr.2d 420 ]; and International Typographical Union etc. Pension Plan v. Ad Compositors, Inc. (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 733, 735 [ 191 Cal.Rptr. 227 ] with Henneberque v. City of Culver City, supra, 172 Cal.App.3d at p. 841 , fn. 3 and cases cited; and Trimble v. Steinfeldt (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 646, 649, 650 [ 224 Cal.Rptr. 195 ]), we are of the opinion that the third 1996Although there appears to be a division of opinion and split of authority on the necessity of complying with the third element of the Sjoberg test (compare Samuel v. Stevedoring Services (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 414, 417-418 [ 29 Cal.Rptr.2d 420 ]; and International Typographical Union etc. Pension Plan v. Ad Compositors, Inc. (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 733, 735 [ 191 Cal.Rptr. 227 ] with Henneberque v. City of Culver City, supra, 172 Cal.App.3d at p. 841 , fn. 3 and cases cited; and Trimble v. Steinfeldt (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 646, 649, 650 [ 224 Cal.Rptr. 195 ]), we are of the opinion that the third | 1 | 1996–1996 |