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 2014–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Crosstalk Productions, Inc. v. Jacobsongreen2 sentences2019Because the “doctrine of unclean hands is heavily fact-dependent” and generally involves a question of fact (Cross-Talk Productions, Inc. v. Jacobson (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 631, 639, 641 ), the parties and court should resolve this issue on remand. 2019Because the “doctrine of unclean hands is heavily fact-dependent” and generally involves a question of fact (Cross-Talk Productions, Inc. v. Jacobson (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 631, 639, 641 ), the parties and court should resolve this issue on remand. | 5 | 5 |
Hillman v. Stultsgreen2 sentences2023It is available to protect the court from having its powers used to bring about an inequitable result in the litigation before it.” (Kendall–Jackson Winery, Ltd. v. Superior Court (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 970, 985 .) By the same token, “ ‘[w]henever an inequitable result would be accomplished by application of the “unclean hands” doctrine the courts have not hesitated to reject it.’ ” (Hillman v. Stults (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 848 , 29 871, quoting Womack v. Womack (1966) 242 Cal.App.2d 572, 579 .) In addition, “ ‘the doctrine of unclean hands is heavily fact dependent’ and generally involves a que 2014It is available to protect the court from having its powers used to bring about an inequitable result in the litigation before it.” (Kendall-Jackson Winery, Ltd. v. Superior Court (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 970, 985 [ 90 Cal.Rptr.2d 743 ] (Kendall-Jackson).) By the same token, “ ‘[w]henever an inequitable result would be accomplished by application of the “unclean hands” doctrine the courts have not hesitated to reject it.’ ” (Hillman v. Stults (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 848, 871 [ 70 Cal.Rptr. 295 ], quoting Womack v. Womack (1966) 242 Cal.App.2d 572, 579 [ 51 Cal.Rptr. 668 ].) Moreover, “[s]ince the d | 2 | 3 |
Kendall-Jackson Winery, Ltd. v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2023It is available to protect the court from having its powers used to bring about an inequitable result in the litigation before it.” (Kendall–Jackson Winery, Ltd. v. Superior Court (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 970, 985 .) By the same token, “ ‘[w]henever an inequitable result would be accomplished by application of the “unclean hands” doctrine the courts have not hesitated to reject it.’ ” (Hillman v. Stults (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 848 , 29 871, quoting Womack v. Womack (1966) 242 Cal.App.2d 572, 579 .) In addition, “ ‘the doctrine of unclean hands is heavily fact dependent’ and generally involves a que 2014It is available to protect the court from having its powers used to bring about an inequitable result in the litigation before it.” (Kendall-Jackson Winery, Ltd. v. Superior Court (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 970, 985 [ 90 Cal.Rptr.2d 743 ] (Kendall-Jackson).) By the same token, “ ‘[w]henever an inequitable result would be accomplished by application of the “unclean hands” doctrine the courts have not hesitated to reject it.’ ” (Hillman v. Stults (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 848, 871 [ 70 Cal.Rptr. 295 ], quoting Womack v. Womack (1966) 242 Cal.App.2d 572, 579 [ 51 Cal.Rptr. 668 ].) Moreover, “[s]ince the d | 2 | 3 |
Womack v. Womackgreen2 sentences2023It is available to protect the court from having its powers used to bring about an inequitable result in the litigation before it.” (Kendall–Jackson Winery, Ltd. v. Superior Court (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 970, 985 .) By the same token, “ ‘[w]henever an inequitable result would be accomplished by application of the “unclean hands” doctrine the courts have not hesitated to reject it.’ ” (Hillman v. Stults (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 848 , 29 871, quoting Womack v. Womack (1966) 242 Cal.App.2d 572, 579 .) In addition, “ ‘the doctrine of unclean hands is heavily fact dependent’ and generally involves a que 2014It is available to protect the court from having its powers used to bring about an inequitable result in the litigation before it.” (Kendall-Jackson Winery, Ltd. v. Superior Court (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 970, 985 [ 90 Cal.Rptr.2d 743 ] (Kendall-Jackson).) By the same token, “ ‘[w]henever an inequitable result would be accomplished by application of the “unclean hands” doctrine the courts have not hesitated to reject it.’ ” (Hillman v. Stults (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 848, 871 [ 70 Cal.Rptr. 295 ], quoting Womack v. Womack (1966) 242 Cal.App.2d 572, 579 [ 51 Cal.Rptr. 668 ].) Moreover, “[s]ince the d | 2 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Blain v. Doctor's Co.
green
2 sentences2014It is available to protect the court from having its powers used to bring about an inequitable result in the litigation before it.” (Kendall-Jackson Winery, Ltd. v. Superior Court (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 970, 985 [ 90 Cal.Rptr.2d 743 ] (Kendall-Jackson).) By the same token, “ ‘[w]henever an inequitable result would be accomplished by application of the “unclean hands” doctrine the courts have not hesitated to reject it.’ ” (Hillman v. Stults (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 848, 871 [ 70 Cal.Rptr. 295 ], quoting Womack v. Womack (1966) 242 Cal.App.2d 572, 579 [ 51 Cal.Rptr. 668 ].) Moreover, “[s]ince the d 2014It is available to protect the court from having its powers used to bring about an inequitable result in the litigation before it.” (Kendall-Jackson Winery, Ltd. v. Superior Court (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 970, 985 [ 90 Cal.Rptr.2d 743 ] (Kendall-Jackson).) By the same token, “ ‘[w]henever an inequitable result would be accomplished by application of the “unclean hands” doctrine the courts have not hesitated to reject it.’ ” (Hillman v. Stults (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 848, 871 [ 70 Cal.Rptr. 295 ], quoting Womack v. Womack (1966) 242 Cal.App.2d 572, 579 [ 51 Cal.Rptr. 668 ].) Moreover, “[s]ince the d | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Jackson v. LegalMatch.com
green
1 sentence2023It is available to protect the court from having its powers used to bring about an inequitable result in the litigation before it.” (Kendall–Jackson Winery, Ltd. v. Superior Court (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 970, 985 .) By the same token, “ ‘[w]henever an inequitable result would be accomplished by application of the “unclean hands” doctrine the courts have not hesitated to reject it.’ ” (Hillman v. Stults (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 848 , 29 871, quoting Womack v. Womack (1966) 242 Cal.App.2d 572, 579 .) In addition, “ ‘the doctrine of unclean hands is heavily fact dependent’ and generally involves a que | 1 | 2023–2023 |