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.
50 California opinions name it 5 courts 1961–2025 10 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 |
|---|---|---|
Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc.green2 sentences2022Any local rule that ‘conflicts with any statewide statute, rule of law, or Judicial Council rule . . . is an inappropriate exercise of that court’s powers’ and not ‘a valid exercise of the court’s inherent judicial powers to adopt procedures . . . .’ ” (In re Harley C. (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 494, 507 , quoting Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 953, 967-968 .) Thus, the trial court’s inherent and statutory authority to control proceedings before it does not permit the trial court to fashion rules that effectively deprive a litigant of a right otherwise guaranteed in the state 2019Code, § 68070, subd. (a) ; Elkins, supra , 41 Cal.4th at p. 1351-1354 , 63 Cal.Rptr.3d 483 , 163 P.3d 160 ; Rutherford, supra , 16 Cal.4th at p. 967 , 67 Cal.Rptr.2d 16 , 941 P.2d 1203 ["regardless of their source of authority," trial judges lack authority to issue local rules that conflict with statutes or are inconsistent with law].) Any local rule that "conflicts with any statewide statute, rule of law, or Judicial Council rule ... is an inappropriate exercise of that court's powers" and not "a valid exercise of the court's inherent judicial powers to adopt procedures ...." ( Rutherford, su | 5 | 10 |
Sara M. v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2018VI, § 6, subd. (d).) A rule of court inconsistent even with legislative intent is invalid, even absent an express legislative prohibition on the promulgation of a rule on the subject, and a rule can also be inconsistent even though it can operate harmoniously with a statute. ( California Court Reporters Assn. v. Judicial Council of California (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 15 , 22, 46 Cal.Rptr.2d 44 [Judicial Council's rule-making authority subordinate to Legislature]; accord, In re Robin M . (1978) 21 Cal.3d 337 , 346, 146 Cal.Rptr. 352 , 579 P.2d 1 ; cf. Sara M. v. Superior Court (2005) 36 Cal.4th 99 2018VI, § 6, subd. (d).) A rule of court inconsistent even with legislative intent is invalid, even absent an express legislative prohibition on the promulgation of a rule on the subject, and a rule can also be inconsistent even though it can operate harmoniously with a statute. ( California Court Reporters Assn. v. Judicial Council of California (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 15 , 22, 46 Cal.Rptr.2d 44 [Judicial Council's rule-making authority subordinate to Legislature]; accord, In re Robin M . (1978) 21 Cal.3d 337 , 346, 146 Cal.Rptr. 352 , 579 P.2d 1 ; cf. Sara M. v. Superior Court (2005) 36 Cal.4th 99 | 2 | 4 |
California Court Reporters Ass'n v. Judicial Councilgreen2 sentences2018VI, § 6, subd. (d).) A rule of court inconsistent even with legislative intent is invalid, even absent an express legislative prohibition on the promulgation of a rule on the subject, and a rule can also be inconsistent even though it can operate harmoniously with a statute. ( California Court Reporters Assn. v. Judicial Council of California (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 15 , 22, 46 Cal.Rptr.2d 44 [Judicial Council's rule-making authority subordinate to Legislature]; accord, In re Robin M . (1978) 21 Cal.3d 337 , 346, 146 Cal.Rptr. 352 , 579 P.2d 1 ; cf. Sara M. v. Superior Court (2005) 36 Cal.4th 99 2018VI, § 6, subd. (d).) A rule of court inconsistent even with legislative intent is invalid, even absent an express legislative prohibition on the promulgation of a rule on the subject, and a rule can also be inconsistent even though it can operate harmoniously with a statute. ( California Court Reporters Assn. v. Judicial Council of California (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 15 , 22, 46 Cal.Rptr.2d 44 [Judicial Council's rule-making authority subordinate to Legislature]; accord, In re Robin M . (1978) 21 Cal.3d 337 , 346, 146 Cal.Rptr. 352 , 579 P.2d 1 ; cf. Sara M. v. Superior Court (2005) 36 Cal.4th 99 | 2 | 3 |
In Re Robin M.green2 sentences2018VI, § 6, subd. (d).) A rule of court inconsistent even with legislative intent is invalid, even absent an express legislative prohibition on the promulgation of a rule on the subject, and a rule can also be inconsistent even though it can operate harmoniously with a statute. ( California Court Reporters Assn. v. Judicial Council of California (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 15 , 22, 46 Cal.Rptr.2d 44 [Judicial Council's rule-making authority subordinate to Legislature]; accord, In re Robin M . (1978) 21 Cal.3d 337 , 346, 146 Cal.Rptr. 352 , 579 P.2d 1 ; cf. Sara M. v. Superior Court (2005) 36 Cal.4th 99 2018VI, § 6, subd. (d).) A rule of court inconsistent even with legislative intent is invalid, even absent an express legislative prohibition on the promulgation of a rule on the subject, and a rule can also be inconsistent even though it can operate harmoniously with a statute. ( California Court Reporters Assn. v. Judicial Council of California (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 15 , 22, 46 Cal.Rptr.2d 44 [Judicial Council's rule-making authority subordinate to Legislature]; accord, In re Robin M . (1978) 21 Cal.3d 337 , 346, 146 Cal.Rptr. 352 , 579 P.2d 1 ; cf. Sara M. v. Superior Court (2005) 36 Cal.4th 99 | 2 | 2 |
In Re Alanna A.green2 sentences2007(The statute similarly makes no mention of terminating jurisdiction upon the return of the child to the physical custody of his or her parent.) However, the Judicial Council’s interpretation of this statute in rule 5.710 (former rule 1460), quoted above, expressly authorizes continuing court supervision and ordering family maintenance services. “[Ajlthough not binding on the courts and invalid if contrary to statute, [a Judicial Council rule interpreting the dependency statutes] is entitled to great weight and will be overturned only if it is clearly erroneous.” (Sara M. v. Superior Court, sup 2007(The statute similarly makes no mention of terminating jurisdiction upon the return of the child to the physical custody of his or her parent.) However, the Judicial Council’s interpretation of this statute in rule 5.710 (former rule 1460), quoted above, expressly authorizes continuing court supervision and ordering family maintenance services. “[Ajlthough not binding on the courts and invalid if contrary to statute, [a Judicial Council rule interpreting the dependency statutes] is entitled to great weight and will be overturned only if it is clearly erroneous.” (Sara M. v. Superior Court, sup | 2 | 2 |
Iverson v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2005Moreover, even properly adopted local rules are only valid to the extent they do not conflict with existing law or the California Rules of Court. 16 This is true of a local courtroom rule, 17 as well as of an informal court policy. 18 “While trial judges have ‘inherent power to control litigation before them, . . .’ they have ‘ “no authority to issue local courtroom rules *917 which conflict with any statute” or are “inconsistent with the law.” . . .’ (Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 953, 967 [ 67 Cal.Rptr.2d 16 , 941 P.2d 1203 ], citations omitted.) If a trial court adopt 2005Moreover, even properly adopted local rules are only valid to the extent they do not conflict with existing law or the California Rules of Court. 16 This is true of a local courtroom rule, 17 as well as of an informal court policy. 18 “While trial judges have ‘inherent power to control litigation before them, . . .’ they have ‘ “no authority to issue local courtroom rules *917 which conflict with any statute” or are “inconsistent with the law.” . . .’ (Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 953, 967 [ 67 Cal.Rptr.2d 16 , 941 P.2d 1203 ], citations omitted.) If a trial court adopt | 2 | 2 |
Sierra Craft, Inc. v. Magnum Enterprises, Inc.green2 sentences2005Moreover, even properly adopted local rules are only valid to the extent they do not conflict with existing law or the California Rules of Court. 16 This is true of a local courtroom rule, 17 as well as of an informal court policy. 18 “While trial judges have ‘inherent power to control litigation before them, . . .’ they have ‘ “no authority to issue local courtroom rules *917 which conflict with any statute” or are “inconsistent with the law.” . . .’ (Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 953, 967 [ 67 Cal.Rptr.2d 16 , 941 P.2d 1203 ], citations omitted.) If a trial court adopt 2005Moreover, even properly adopted local rules are only valid to the extent they do not conflict with existing law or the California Rules of Court. 16 This is true of a local courtroom rule, 17 as well as of an informal court policy. 18 “While trial judges have ‘inherent power to control litigation before them, . . .’ they have ‘ “no authority to issue local courtroom rules *917 which conflict with any statute” or are “inconsistent with the law.” . . .’ (Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 953, 967 [ 67 Cal.Rptr.2d 16 , 941 P.2d 1203 ], citations omitted.) If a trial court adopt | 2 | 2 |
People v. Arandagreen2 sentences2016If the latest edition of the jury instructions approved by the Judicial Council contains an instruction applicable to a case and the trial judge determines that the jury should be instructed on the subject, it is recommended that the judge use the Judicial Council instruction unless he or she finds that a different instruction would more accurately state the law and be understood by jurors." However, as our Supreme Court has explained, "a trial court's failure to give the standard ... instruction does not necessarily constitute state law error," and while "use of the standard instruction ... i 2016If the latest edition of the jury instructions approved by the Judicial Council contains an instruction applicable to a case and the trial judge determines that the jury should be instructed on the subject, it is recommended that the judge use the Judicial Council instruction unless he or she finds that a different instruction would more accurately state the law and be understood by jurors." However, as our Supreme Court has explained, "a trial court's failure to give the standard ... instruction does not necessarily constitute state law error," and while "use of the standard instruction ... i | 1 | 6 |
Imperial County Department of Social Services v. J.E.green2 sentences2010It may be that, considering the conflicting policy considerations including the need to handle dependency matters with “expediency” (In re Claudia E., supra, 163 Cal.App.4th at p. 635), those efforts should be directed to the Legislature or the Judicial Council’s rule making authority (Cal. Const., art. 2010It may be that, considering the conflicting policy considerations including the need to handle dependency matters with "expediency" ( In re Claudia E., supra, 163 Cal.App.4th at p. 635 ), those efforts should be directed to the Legislature or the Judicial Council's rule making authority (Cal. Const., art. | 1 | 2 |
Asbestos Claims Facility v. Berry & Berrygreen2 sentences2007(Volkswagen of America, Inc. v. Superior Court (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 695, 705-706 [ 114 Cal.Rptr.2d 541 ].) But the orders must be consistent with due process (Asbestos Claims Facility v. Berry & Berry (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 9, 24 [ 267 Cal.Rptr. 896 ]) and not be “ ‘inconsistent with *1536 law’ ” or conflict with any statewide statute, rule of law or Judicial Council rule ( Rutherford, supra, 16 Cal.4th at p. 967 ). 2. 2007(Volkswagen of America, Inc. v. Superior Court (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 695, 705-706 [ 114 Cal.Rptr.2d 541 ].) But the orders must be consistent with due process (Asbestos Claims Facility v. Berry & Berry (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 9, 24 [ 267 Cal.Rptr. 896 ]) and not be “ ‘inconsistent with *1536 law’ ” or conflict with any statewide statute, rule of law or Judicial Council rule ( Rutherford, supra, 16 Cal.4th at p. 967 ). 2. | 1 | 2 |
In Re Sarah M.green2 sentences2007(See also In re Sarah M., supra, 233 Cal.App.3d at p. 1493 [“section 364 applies in cases where the dependent child has not been removed from the original custodial home.”].) This analysis unnecessarily restricts the language of the statute itself, misreads the relevant case authority and disregards both an applicable Judicial Council rule and the broad authority of the juvenile court to make orders that further the best interests of dependent children. 2007(See also In re Sarah M., supra, 233 Cal.App.3d at p. 1493 [“section 364 applies in cases where the dependent child has not been removed from the original custodial home.”].) This analysis unnecessarily restricts the language of the statute itself, misreads the relevant case authority and disregards both an applicable Judicial Council rule and the broad authority of the juvenile court to make orders that further the best interests of dependent children. | 1 | 2 |
Volkswagen of America, Inc. v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2007(Volkswagen of America, Inc. v. Superior Court (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 695, 705-706 [ 114 Cal.Rptr.2d 541 ].) But the orders must be consistent with due process (Asbestos Claims Facility v. Berry & Berry (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 9, 24 [ 267 Cal.Rptr. 896 ]) and not be “ ‘inconsistent with *1536 law’ ” or conflict with any statewide statute, rule of law or Judicial Council rule ( Rutherford, supra, 16 Cal.4th at p. 967 ). 2. 2007(Volkswagen of America, Inc. v. Superior Court (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 695, 705-706 [ 114 Cal.Rptr.2d 541 ].) But the orders must be consistent with due process (Asbestos Claims Facility v. Berry & Berry (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 9, 24 [ 267 Cal.Rptr. 896 ]) and not be “ ‘inconsistent with *1536 law’ ” or conflict with any statewide statute, rule of law or Judicial Council rule ( Rutherford, supra, 16 Cal.4th at p. 967 ). 2. | 1 | 2 |
Industrial Indemnity Co. v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2005Nor does the circumstance that the plaintiff belatedly names a party as a defendant establish that that party's interests are substantially adverse to earlier named defendants. ( School Dist. of Okaloosa County v. Superior Court, supra, 58 Cal.App.4th 1126, 1134-1135 , 68 Cal. Rptr.2d 612 [one side previously having peremptorily challenged the judge, a late-appearing party on the same side did not have a right to a separate peremptory challenge]; cf. Industrial Indemnity Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 259, 264 , 262 Cal.Rptr. 544 [upholding Judicial Council rule limiting to 20 day 2005Nor does the circumstance that the plaintiff belatedly names a party as a defendant establish that that party's interests are substantially adverse to earlier named defendants. ( School Dist. of Okaloosa County v. Superior Court, supra, 58 Cal.App.4th 1126, 1134-1135 , 68 Cal. Rptr.2d 612 [one side previously having peremptorily challenged the judge, a late-appearing party on the same side did not have a right to a separate peremptory challenge]; cf. Industrial Indemnity Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 259, 264 , 262 Cal.Rptr. 544 [upholding Judicial Council rule limiting to 20 day | 1 | 2 |
SCHOOL DIST. OF OKALOOSA CTY. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles Countygreen2 sentences2005Nor does the circumstance that the plaintiff belatedly names a party as a defendant establish that that party's interests are substantially adverse to earlier named defendants. ( School Dist. of Okaloosa County v. Superior Court, supra, 58 Cal.App.4th 1126, 1134-1135 , 68 Cal. Rptr.2d 612 [one side previously having peremptorily challenged the judge, a late-appearing party on the same side did not have a right to a separate peremptory challenge]; cf. Industrial Indemnity Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 259, 264 , 262 Cal.Rptr. 544 [upholding Judicial Council rule limiting to 20 day 2005Nor does the circumstance that the plaintiff belatedly names a party as a defendant establish that that party's interests are substantially adverse to earlier named defendants. ( School Dist. of Okaloosa County v. Superior Court, supra, 58 Cal.App.4th 1126, 1134-1135 , 68 Cal. Rptr.2d 612 [one side previously having peremptorily challenged the judge, a late-appearing party on the same side did not have a right to a separate peremptory challenge]; cf. Industrial Indemnity Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 259, 264 , 262 Cal.Rptr. 544 [upholding Judicial Council rule limiting to 20 day | 1 | 2 |
Smith v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1980Proc., § 117.10.) The relevant Judicial Council rule provides and has long provided that such a trial de novo is to be "conducted pursuant to law and rules in all respects as other trials in the superior court except that no written findings of fact or conclusions of law shall be required." (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 155.) It has recently been held that the right to a jury trial is available as in such "other trials." ( Smith v. Superior Court (1979) 93 Cal. App.3d 977, 979 [ 156 Cal. Rptr. 149 ].) In view of these considerations, we think it must be concluded that when a losing defendant in a 1980Proc., § 117.10.) The relevant Judicial Council rule provides and has long provided that such a trial de novo is to be "conducted pursuant to law and rules in all respects as other trials in the superior court except that no written findings of fact or conclusions of law shall be required." (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 155.) It has recently been held that the right to a jury trial is available as in such "other trials." ( Smith v. Superior Court (1979) 93 Cal. App.3d 977, 979 [ 156 Cal. Rptr. 149 ].) In view of these considerations, we think it must be concluded that when a losing defendant in a | 1 | 2 |
People v. Diazgreen2 sentences2021Whenever the latest edition of the Judicial Council jury instructions does not contain an instruction on a subject on which the trial judge determines that the jury should be instructed, or when a Judicial Council instruction cannot be modified to submit the issue properly, the instruction given on that subject should be accurate, brief, understandable, impartial, and free from argument.” (Ibid.) However, standard jury instructions “ ‘are not themselves the law, and are not authority to establish legal propositions or precedent.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Diaz (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1176, 1187, fn. 6 2021Whenever the latest edition of the Judicial Council jury instructions does not contain an instruction on a subject on which the trial judge determines that the jury should be instructed, or when a Judicial Council instruction cannot be modified to submit the issue properly, the instruction given on that subject should be accurate, brief, understandable, impartial, and free from argument.” (Ibid.) However, standard jury instructions “ ‘are not themselves the law, and are not authority to establish legal propositions or precedent.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Diaz (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1176, 1187, fn. 6 | 1 | 1 |
| Hernandez v. Superior Courtgreen | 1 | 1 |
| In Re NSgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Zenker-Felt Imports v. Malloygreen | 1 | 1 |
| In Re Richard S.green | 1 | 1 |
| Kalivas v. Barry Controls Corp.green | 1 | 1 |
| Committee for Responsible Planning v. City of Indian Wellsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Olson v. Corygreen | 1 | 1 |
| D'AMICO v. Board of Medical Examinersgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Doers v. Golden Gate Bridge, Higway & Transportation Districtgreen | 1 | 1 |
| City of Rohnert Park v. Superior Courtgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Hebert v. Harngreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Karsaigreen | 1 | 1 |
| Trump v. Superior Courtgreen | 1 | 1 |
| City of Los Angeles v. County of Monogreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Elkins v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences2019Code, § 68070, subd. (a) ; Elkins, supra , 41 Cal.4th at p. 1351-1354 , 63 Cal.Rptr.3d 483 , 163 P.3d 160 ; Rutherford, supra , 16 Cal.4th at p. 967 , 67 Cal.Rptr.2d 16 , 941 P.2d 1203 ["regardless of their source of authority," trial judges lack authority to issue local rules that conflict with statutes or are inconsistent with law].) Any local rule that "conflicts with any statewide statute, rule of law, or Judicial Council rule ... is an inappropriate exercise of that court's powers" and not "a valid exercise of the court's inherent judicial powers to adopt procedures ...." ( Rutherford, su 2019Code, § 68070, subd. (a) ; Elkins, supra , 41 Cal.4th at p. 1351-1354 , 63 Cal.Rptr.3d 483 , 163 P.3d 160 ; Rutherford, supra , 16 Cal.4th at p. 967 , 67 Cal.Rptr.2d 16 , 941 P.2d 1203 ["regardless of their source of authority," trial judges lack authority to issue local rules that conflict with statutes or are inconsistent with law].) Any local rule that "conflicts with any statewide statute, rule of law, or Judicial Council rule ... is an inappropriate exercise of that court's powers" and not "a valid exercise of the court's inherent judicial powers to adopt procedures ...." ( Rutherford, su | 3 | 2013–2019 |
People v. Quiroz
green
2 sentences2025(Ibid.) 6 The issue presented here is distinguishable from People v. Quiroz (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 1371 . 2025(Ibid.) 6 The issue presented here is distinguishable from People v. Quiroz (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 1371 . | 2 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Gonzalez
green
2 sentences2024By interpreting the word “impose” to mean “impose and execute,” a trial court would be permitted to “impose and stay” additional enhancements and preserve the ability to impose and execute such additional enhancements should the executed enhancement be invalidated on appeal. ( Gonzalez, supra, 43 Cal.4th at pp. 1127–1128.) This interpretation also harmonized section 12022.53 with the rationales of section 654 and the Judicial Council’s rule requiring a stay of any legally prohibited enhancement for the same reason (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.447). 2024By interpreting the word “impose” to mean “impose and execute,” a trial court would be permitted to “impose and stay” additional enhancements and preserve the ability to impose and execute such additional enhancements should the executed enhancement be invalidated on appeal. ( Gonzalez, supra, 43 Cal.4th at pp. 1127–1128.) This interpretation also harmonized section 12022.53 with the rationales of section 654 and the Judicial Council’s rule requiring a stay of any legally prohibited enhancement for the same reason (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.447). | 2 | 2024–2024 |
Turner v. Schultz
green
2 sentences2022(E.g., Turner v. Schultz (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 974, 976 ; Acosta v. Kerrigan (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 1124, 1125 .) We do not discuss these decisions because the rulings in those cases did not involve the merits of a dispute, so they are distinguishable. 26 interpretation of section 1717 as permitting fee awards only at the end of an action.12 Rule 3.1702(b)(1) of the California Rules of Court13 states that a “motion to claim attorney’s fees for services up to and including the rendition of judgment in the trial court— including attorney’s fees on an appeal before the rendition of judgment in t 2022(E.g., Turner v. Schultz (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 974, 976 ; Acosta v. Kerrigan (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 1124, 1125 .) We do not discuss these decisions because the rulings in those cases did not involve the merits of a dispute, so they are distinguishable. 26 interpretation of section 1717 as permitting fee awards only at the end of an action.12 Rule 3.1702(b)(1) of the California Rules of Court13 states that a “motion to claim attorney’s fees for services up to and including the rendition of judgment in the trial court— including attorney’s fees on an appeal before the rendition of judgment in t | 2 | 2022–2022 |
Acosta v. Kerrigan
green
2 sentences2022(E.g., Turner v. Schultz (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 974, 976 ; Acosta v. Kerrigan (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 1124, 1125 .) We do not discuss these decisions because the rulings in those cases did not involve the merits of a dispute, so they are distinguishable. 26 interpretation of section 1717 as permitting fee awards only at the end of an action.12 Rule 3.1702(b)(1) of the California Rules of Court13 states that a “motion to claim attorney’s fees for services up to and including the rendition of judgment in the trial court— including attorney’s fees on an appeal before the rendition of judgment in t 2022(E.g., Turner v. Schultz (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 974, 976 ; Acosta v. Kerrigan (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 1124, 1125 .) We do not discuss these decisions because the rulings in those cases did not involve the merits of a dispute, so they are distinguishable. 26 interpretation of section 1717 as permitting fee awards only at the end of an action.12 Rule 3.1702(b)(1) of the California Rules of Court13 states that a “motion to claim attorney’s fees for services up to and including the rendition of judgment in the trial court— including attorney’s fees on an appeal before the rendition of judgment in t | 2 | 2022–2022 |
First State Insurance v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences2003Co. v. Superior Court, supra, “urge[d] the Legislature to consider the matter and determine whether the procedures established by section 437c should be modified in a case involving complex litigation and, if so, in what manner.” ( 79 Cal.App.4th at p. 336 .) The dissent in Cottle provided a well-reasoned argument against permitting such a procedure. 2003Co. v. Superior Court, supra , "urge[d] the Legislature to consider the matter and determine whether the procedures established by section 437c should be modified in a case involving complex litigation and, if so, in what manner." ( 79 Cal.App.4th at p. 336 , 94 Cal.Rptr.2d 104 .) [11] The dissent in Cottle provided a well-reasoned argument against permitting such a procedure. | 2 | 2003–2003 |
People v. Frye
green
2 sentences2024If the latest edition of the jury instructions approved by the Judicial Council contains an instruction applicable to a case and the trial judge determines that the jury should be instructed on the subject, it is recommended that the judge use the Judicial Council instruction unless the judge finds that a different instruction would more accurately state the law and be understood by jurors.…” 14. evidence of excuse or justification, the court has a sua sponte duty to include the third, bracketed element in the instruction.” (Judicial Council of Cal., Criminal Jury Instns. (2022) at p. 247.) Th 2024If the latest edition of the jury instructions approved by the Judicial Council contains an instruction applicable to a case and the trial judge determines that the jury should be instructed on the subject, it is recommended that the judge use the Judicial Council instruction unless the judge finds that a different instruction would more accurately state the law and be understood by jurors.…” 14. evidence of excuse or justification, the court has a sua sponte duty to include the third, bracketed element in the instruction.” (Judicial Council of Cal., Criminal Jury Instns. (2022) at p. 247.) Th | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. L. A. Cnty. Dep't of Children v. Maria O. (In re Harley C.)
green
1 sentence2022Any local rule that ‘conflicts with any statewide statute, rule of law, or Judicial Council rule . . . is an inappropriate exercise of that court’s powers’ and not ‘a valid exercise of the court’s inherent judicial powers to adopt procedures . . . .’ ” (In re Harley C. (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 494, 507 , quoting Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 953, 967-968 .) Thus, the trial court’s inherent and statutory authority to control proceedings before it does not permit the trial court to fashion rules that effectively deprive a litigant of a right otherwise guaranteed in the state | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Ayala v. ARROYO VISTA FAMILY HEALTH CENTER
green
2 sentences2021(Ayala v. Arroyo Vista Family Health Center (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1350, 1358 .) We assume the jury, given correct instructions, might have drawn inferences more favorable to the appellant and rendered a verdict in that party’s favor on those issues to which it received misdirection. 2021(Ayala v. Arroyo Vista Family Health Center (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1350, 1358 .) We assume the jury, given correct instructions, might have drawn inferences more favorable to the appellant and rendered a verdict in that party’s favor on those issues to which it received misdirection. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Suman v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences2021(Suman v. Superior Court (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 1309 , 1321–1322.) The use of standard instructions approved by the Judicial Council, such as CACI, is “strongly encouraged.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.1050(e).) “If the latest edition of the jury instructions approved by the Judicial Council contains an instruction applicable to a case and the trial judge determines that the jury should be instructed on the subject, it is recommended that the judge use the Judicial Council instruction unless he or she finds that a different instruction would more accurately state the law and be understood by j 2021(Suman v. Superior Court (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 1309 , 1321–1322.) The use of standard instructions approved by the Judicial Council, such as CACI, is “strongly encouraged.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.1050(e).) “If the latest edition of the jury instructions approved by the Judicial Council contains an instruction applicable to a case and the trial judge determines that the jury should be instructed on the subject, it is recommended that the judge use the Judicial Council instruction unless he or she finds that a different instruction would more accurately state the law and be understood by j | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Davis v. Honeywell International Inc.
green
2 sentences2021Inc. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 477, 495 .) “We review de novo whether a challenged instruction correctly states the law.” (Bowman v. Wyatt (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 286, 298 .) The use of standard instructions approved by the Judicial Council, such as CACI, is “strongly encouraged.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.1050(e).) “If the latest edition of the jury instructions approved by the Judicial Council contains an instruction applicable to a case and the trial judge determines that the jury should be 16 instructed on the subject, it is recommended that the judge use the Judicial Council instruction un 2021Inc. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 477, 495 .) “We review de novo whether a challenged instruction correctly states the law.” (Bowman v. Wyatt (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 286, 298 .) The use of standard instructions approved by the Judicial Council, such as CACI, is “strongly encouraged.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.1050(e).) “If the latest edition of the jury instructions approved by the Judicial Council contains an instruction applicable to a case and the trial judge determines that the jury should be 16 instructed on the subject, it is recommended that the judge use the Judicial Council instruction un | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Bowman v. Wyatt
green
2 sentences2021Inc. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 477, 495 .) “We review de novo whether a challenged instruction correctly states the law.” (Bowman v. Wyatt (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 286, 298 .) The use of standard instructions approved by the Judicial Council, such as CACI, is “strongly encouraged.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.1050(e).) “If the latest edition of the jury instructions approved by the Judicial Council contains an instruction applicable to a case and the trial judge determines that the jury should be 16 instructed on the subject, it is recommended that the judge use the Judicial Council instruction un 2021Inc. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 477, 495 .) “We review de novo whether a challenged instruction correctly states the law.” (Bowman v. Wyatt (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 286, 298 .) The use of standard instructions approved by the Judicial Council, such as CACI, is “strongly encouraged.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.1050(e).) “If the latest edition of the jury instructions approved by the Judicial Council contains an instruction applicable to a case and the trial judge determines that the jury should be 16 instructed on the subject, it is recommended that the judge use the Judicial Council instruction un | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| Landry v. Berryessa Union School District green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Van Keulen v. Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd.
green
1 sentence2013(See Van Keulen, supra, 162 Cal.App.4th at p. 130 .) We will therefore affirm the January 20, 2012 order of dismissal. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Lyons v. Wickhorst
green
1 sentence2013Section 583.410, subdivision (b) requires that “[d]ismissal shall be pursuant to the procedure and in accordance with the criteria prescribed by rules adopted by the Judicial Council.” Section 583.420,6 subdivision (a)(2)(B) provides: “The court may not dismiss an action pursuant to this article for delay in prosecution except after one of the following conditions has occurred: [¶] . . . [¶] Two years after the action is commenced against the defendant if the Judicial Council by rule adopted pursuant to Section 583.410 so prescribes for the court because of the condition of the court calendar | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| In Re Isayah C. green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Lacrabere v. Wise green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Fewel v. Fewel green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| In Re Natasha A. green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Deyo v. Kilbourne green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Lu v. Superior Court of Orange Cty. green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Burke v. Superior Court green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Vandenberg v. Superior Court green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Demirgian v. Superior Court green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Nationwide Insurance v. Superior Court green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.