44 California opinions name it 2 courts 1914–2025 20 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 |
|---|---|---|
City of Montebello v. Vasquezgreen2 sentences2021(Flatley, at p. 316; see City of Montebello v. Vasquez (2016) 1 Cal.5th 409, 424 [“The defendant must concede the point, or the evidence conclusively demonstrate it, for a claim of illegality to defeat an anti-SLAPP motion at the first step.”].) “If, however, a factual dispute exists about the legitimacy of the defendant’s conduct, it cannot be resolved within the first step but must be raised by the plaintiff in connection with the plaintiff’s burden to show a probability of prevailing on the merits.” (Flatley, at p. 316.) For the illegality exception to apply, the defendants’ conduct must be 2021(Flatley, at p. 316; see City of Montebello v. Vasquez (2016) 1 Cal.5th 409, 424 [“The defendant must concede the point, or the evidence conclusively demonstrate it, for a claim of illegality to defeat an anti-SLAPP motion at the first step.”].) “If, however, a factual dispute exists about the legitimacy of the defendant’s conduct, it cannot be resolved within the first step but must be raised by the plaintiff in connection with the plaintiff’s burden to show a probability of prevailing on the merits.” (Flatley, at p. 316.) For the illegality exception to apply, the defendants’ conduct must be | 4 | 4 |
Flatley v. Maurogreen2 sentences2025(Levene) fell within the illegality exception under Flatley v. Mauro (2006) 39 Cal.4th 299 (Flatley). 2025In opposition, appellants argued the conduct was not protected activity because it fell within the illegality exception discussed in Flatley v. Mauro (2006) 39 Cal.4th 299 (the Flatley rule). | 1 | 15 |
Moncharsh v. Heily & Blasegreen2 sentences2025Instead, relying on Moncharsh, Sargon concluded that the plaintiff there had not waived an illegality defense to arbitration by not raising it in the trial court pre- award—because the claim would not have been a proper basis for 30 opposing a petition to compel arbitration under section 1281.2 in the first instance, the defense in that case going not to revocation of the arbitration contract but to the substantive merits of the claim. ( Sargon, supra, 15 Cal.5th at pp. 761–762, citing Moncharsh, supra, 3 Cal.4th at pp. 29–30.) Here, by contrast, Madrigal entered into the joint stipulation tha 2005(Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1, 32 [ 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 183 , 832 P.2d 899 ]; Ericksen, Arbuthnot, McCarthy, Kearney & Walsh, Inc. v. 100 Oak Street (1983) 35 Cal.3d 312, 316, fn. 2 [ 197 Cal.Rptr. 581 , 673 P.2d 251 ]; Lindenstadt v. Staff Builders, Inc., supra, 55 Cal.App.4th at p. 891 ; All Points Traders, Inc. v. Barrington Associates (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 723, 736-737 [ 259 Cal.Rptr. 780 ]; California State Council of Carpenters v. Superior Court (1970) 11 Cal.App.3d 144, 157 [ 89 Cal.Rptr. 625 ].) Second, defendant argues that like a fraud in the inception claim, the arbitrat | 1 | 2 |
All Points Traders, Inc. v. Barrington Associatesgreen2 sentences2018Sciences v. Leland Stanford Jr. U. (1989) 489 U.S. 468 , 470, 109 S.Ct. 1248 , 103 L.Ed.2d 488 ; Cronus Investments, Inc. v. Concierge Services (2005) 35 Cal.4th 376 , 387, 25 Cal.Rptr.3d 540 , 107 P.3d 217 .) Since Loving & Evans , the Courts of Appeal in several cases have applied the illegality exception in declining to confirm arbitration awards based on a judicial determination that the parties' contract violated public policy and was therefore void and unenforceable in its entirety. ( Lindenstadt v. Staff Builders, Inc. (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 882 , 892-893, 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 484 [whether unl 2018Sciences v. Leland Stanford Jr. U. (1989) 489 U.S. 468 , 470, 109 S.Ct. 1248 , 103 L.Ed.2d 488 ; Cronus Investments, Inc. v. Concierge Services (2005) 35 Cal.4th 376 , 387, 25 Cal.Rptr.3d 540 , 107 P.3d 217 .) Since Loving & Evans , the Courts of Appeal in several cases have applied the illegality exception in declining to confirm arbitration awards based on a judicial determination that the parties' contract violated public policy and was therefore void and unenforceable in its entirety. ( Lindenstadt v. Staff Builders, Inc. (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 882 , 892-893, 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 484 [whether unl | 1 | 2 |
Ericksen, Arbuthnot, McCarthy, Kearney & Walsh, Inc. v. 100 Oak Streetgreen2 sentences2005(Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1, 32 [ 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 183 , 832 P.2d 899 ]; Ericksen, Arbuthnot, McCarthy, Kearney & Walsh, Inc. v. 100 Oak Street (1983) 35 Cal.3d 312, 316, fn. 2 [ 197 Cal.Rptr. 581 , 673 P.2d 251 ]; Lindenstadt v. Staff Builders, Inc., supra, 55 Cal.App.4th at p. 891 ; All Points Traders, Inc. v. Barrington Associates (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 723, 736-737 [ 259 Cal.Rptr. 780 ]; California State Council of Carpenters v. Superior Court (1970) 11 Cal.App.3d 144, 157 [ 89 Cal.Rptr. 625 ].) Second, defendant argues that like a fraud in the inception claim, the arbitrat 2005(Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1, 32 [ 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 183 , 832 P.2d 899 ]; Ericksen, Arbuthnot, McCarthy, Kearney & Walsh, Inc. v. 100 Oak Street (1983) 35 Cal.3d 312, 316, fn. 2 [ 197 Cal.Rptr. 581 , 673 P.2d 251 ]; Lindenstadt v. Staff Builders, Inc., supra, 55 Cal.App.4th at p. 891 ; All Points Traders, Inc. v. Barrington Associates (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 723, 736-737 [ 259 Cal.Rptr. 780 ]; California State Council of Carpenters v. Superior Court (1970) 11 Cal.App.3d 144, 157 [ 89 Cal.Rptr. 625 ].) Second, defendant argues that like a fraud in the inception claim, the arbitrat | 1 | 2 |
United States v. Carlo Castrogreen1 sentence2023(See United States v. Castro (3d Cir. 2013) 704 F.3d 125, 139 [“to properly convict [the defendant] of violating [18 U.S.C.] § 1001, the government must be able to show that he made a statement to government agents that was untrue, and the government cannot satisfy that burden … if in fact he told the literal truth”].) Because the defendants do not concede illegal conduct, and the evidence does not conclusively establish illegal conduct, the Language Center has not carried its burden of showing that the illegality exception applies. | 1 | 1 |
San Diegans for Open Gov't v. San Diego State Univ. Research Found.green1 sentence2023(Belen v. Ryan Seacrest Productions, LLC (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 1145 , 1158– 1159 [illegality exception inapplicable where defendants did not concede illegal conduct and evidence did not conclusively establish it]; San Diegans for Open Government v. San Diego State University Research Foundation (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 76, 106 (SDOG) [same].) 2. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Hillgreen2 sentences2021(See Mitchell, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 185 ; compare Hill, supra, 185 Cal.App.3d at p. 833 [illegal sentence].) McCowan makes no claim the 6 sentence imposed and reflected in the sentencing transcript and minute order was illegal or erroneous. 2021(See Mitchell, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 185 ; compare Hill, supra, 185 Cal.App.3d at p. 833 [illegal sentence].) McCowan makes no claim the 6 sentence imposed and reflected in the sentencing transcript and minute order was illegal or erroneous. | 1 | 1 |
Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegnagreen2 sentences2020In contrast, in Nielsen, the same illegality defense also invalidated the entire agreement. ( Nielsen, supra, 22 Cal.App.5th at p. 1110 .) 28 Communications Workers (1986) 475 U.S. 643, 648 ; see Rent-A- Center, supra, 561 U.S. at p. 67 ; First Options of Chicago, Inc. v Kaplan (1995) 514 U.S. 938, 943 .) Section 2 of the FAA provides: “A written provision in . . . a contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising out of such contract . . . shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in e 2020“A recurring question under § 2 [of the FAA] is who should decide whether ‘grounds . . . exist at law or in equity’ to invalidate an arbitration agreement.” (Preston, supra, 552 U.S. at p. 353 .) As the United States Supreme Court has held, “Challenges to the validity of arbitration agreements . . . can be divided into two types,” namely, “challenges specifically the validity of the agreement to arbitrate” and the “other challenges the contract as a whole, either on a ground that directly affects the entire agreement (e.g., the agreement was fraudulently induced), or on the ground that the ill | 1 | 1 |
| Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. Jacksongreen | 1 | 1 |
John MacDonald v. Cashcall Incgreen1 sentence2020And as Rent-A- Center observed, such a challenge is all that is required to dispute the viability of the delegation provisions”]; MacDonald v. CashCall, Inc. (3d Cir. 2018) 883 F.3d 220, 226-227 [“[i]n specifically challenging a delegation clause, a party may rely on the same arguments that it employs to contest the enforceability of other arbitration agreement provisions”].) In Jackpot Harvesting, supra, 33 Cal.App.5th 719 , Luxor Cabs, Inc. v. Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Co. (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 970 (Luxor Cabs), and Nielsen, supra, 22 Cal.App.5th 1096 , the courts held that | 1 | 1 |
| Nitro-Lift Technologies, L. L. C. v. Howardgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Epic Medical Management, LLC v. Paquettegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Novartis Vaccines & Diagnostics, Inc. v. Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty USA, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Paul for Council v. Hanyeczgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Fremont Reorganizing Corp. v. Faigingreen | 1 | 1 |
| McCaskey v. CALIFORNIA STATE AUTOMOBILE ASSN.green | 1 | 1 |
| California State Council of Carpenters v. Superior Courtgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Baker v. Millergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Taliaferro v. Wamplergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Frisbie v. Collinsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Bradfordgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Joyce v. Tomasinigreen | 1 | 1 |
| Holland v. Morgan & Peacock Properties Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Marshall v. LaBoigreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Mendoza v. ADP Screening & Selection Services, Inc.
green
2 sentences2024(See Dziubla v. Piazza (2020) 59 Cal.App.5th 140 , 151 (Dziubla); Mendoza, supra, 182 Cal.App.4th at p. 1654 .) Second, “it is not sufficient that plaintiffs can reasonably argue or offer some evidence that defendant’s conduct was unlawful.” (Dziubla, at p. 151, italics omitted.) As we discuss below under the second prong of the anti-SLAPP analysis, the evidence is far from conclusive that the mask policy violated plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. 2020(G.R. v. Intelligator (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 606, 616 ; Mendoza v. ADP Screening & Selection Services, Inc. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1644, 1654 .) Even if the filing of duplicative mechanic’s liens is statutorily unauthorized, it is not criminal and does not fit the illegality exception. 10 In public works projects like that at issue in A.F. | 5 | 2015–2024 |
Cross v. Cooper
green
2 sentences2016(Cross v. Cooper, supra, 197 Cal.App.4th at p. 385 .) Therefore, we conclude the anti-SLAPP statute applies to the first four causes of actions set forth in the cross-complaint. 2014(Flatley, at p. 317; Lefebvre, at p. 704.) “[T]he defendant may invoke the anti-SLAPP statute unless the activity is unlawful as a matter of law. [Citation.] An activity may be deemed unlawful as a matter of law when the defendant does not dispute that the activity was unlawful, or 8 uncontroverted evidence conclusively shows the activity was unlawful.” (Dwight R., supra, 212 Cal.App.4th at pp. 711-712, citing Flatley, at p. 317; Cross v. Cooper (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 357, 383-384 .) The trial court did not err in holding the illegality exception was inapplicable to plaintiff’s cause of action | 3 | 2014–2016 |
People v. Espinoza
green
2 sentences2025(See People v. Espinoza, supra, 95 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1314–1315.) To apply the illegality exception, plaintiff must conclusively show at least some of the allegations in the employee complaints were derived solely from the report. 2025(See People v. Espinoza, supra, 95 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1314–1315.) To apply the illegality exception, plaintiff must conclusively show at least some of the allegations in the employee complaints were derived solely from the report. | 2 | 2025–2025 |
Lindenstadt v. Staff Builders, Inc.
green
2 sentences2018Sciences v. Leland Stanford Jr. U. (1989) 489 U.S. 468 , 470, 109 S.Ct. 1248 , 103 L.Ed.2d 488 ; Cronus Investments, Inc. v. Concierge Services (2005) 35 Cal.4th 376 , 387, 25 Cal.Rptr.3d 540 , 107 P.3d 217 .) Since Loving & Evans , the Courts of Appeal in several cases have applied the illegality exception in declining to confirm arbitration awards based on a judicial determination that the parties' contract violated public policy and was therefore void and unenforceable in its entirety. ( Lindenstadt v. Staff Builders, Inc. (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 882 , 892-893, 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 484 [whether unl 2018Sciences v. Leland Stanford Jr. U. (1989) 489 U.S. 468 , 470, 109 S.Ct. 1248 , 103 L.Ed.2d 488 ; Cronus Investments, Inc. v. Concierge Services (2005) 35 Cal.4th 376 , 387, 25 Cal.Rptr.3d 540 , 107 P.3d 217 .) Since Loving & Evans , the Courts of Appeal in several cases have applied the illegality exception in declining to confirm arbitration awards based on a judicial determination that the parties' contract violated public policy and was therefore void and unenforceable in its entirety. ( Lindenstadt v. Staff Builders, Inc. (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 882 , 892-893, 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 484 [whether unl | 2 | 2005–2018 |
Loving & Evans v. Blick
green
2 sentences2018The specific question in Loving & Evans concerned the validity of an arbitration award granted to a group of unlicensed contractors feuding with a property owner. ( Loving & Evans , supra , 33 Cal.2d at pp. 604-605, 204 P.2d 23 .) The superior court had confirmed the award without establishing that the contractors had at least substantially complied with the licensing statutes. 1990If it is presented in a proceeding under said section 1287 or 1288 and similar uncontradicted evidence is offered, the court should deny confirmation and should vacate any award granting relief under the illegal contract upon the ground that the arbitrator exceeded his powers in making such award." ( Ibid. ) (3a) Although in Loving & Evans v. Blick both a motion to vacate and a motion to confirm were made in the trial court, the rationale the court *1081 employed makes it clear the illegality defense may be raised for the first time in opposition to a motion to confirm. "`The laws in support o | 2 | 1990–2018 |
Jespersen v. Zubiate-Beauchamp
green
1 sentence2025We find the factual scenario and analysis of Jespersen v. Zubiate- Beauchamp (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 624 more closely analogous. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Tri-Q, Inc. v. Sta-Hi Corp.
green
1 sentence2025First, “[t]here is no doubt that the general rule requires the courts to withhold relief under the terms of an illegal contract or agreement which is violative of public policy.” (Tri-Q, Inc. v. Sta- Hi Corp. (1965) 63 Cal.2d 199, 218 .) Illegality, however, is not the only factor to consider in deciding whether to grant a party relief. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Sargon Enters., Inc. v. Browne George Ross LLP
green
1 sentence2025Instead, relying on Moncharsh, Sargon concluded that the plaintiff there had not waived an illegality defense to arbitration by not raising it in the trial court pre- award—because the claim would not have been a proper basis for 30 opposing a petition to compel arbitration under section 1281.2 in the first instance, the defense in that case going not to revocation of the arbitration contract but to the substantive merits of the claim. ( Sargon, supra, 15 Cal.5th at pp. 761–762, citing Moncharsh, supra, 3 Cal.4th at pp. 29–30.) Here, by contrast, Madrigal entered into the joint stipulation tha | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Bradbury v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence2022(Schaffer v. City and County of San Francisco (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 992, 999-1000 ; Bradbury v. Superior Ct. (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 1108, 1116 .) 11 Relying on Flatley, Barth attempts to avoid the reach of the anti-SLAPP statute by claiming the act of arresting a person without probable cause falls under the illegality exception to protected speech and conduct. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Schaffer v. City and County of San Francisco
green
1 sentence2022(Schaffer v. City and County of San Francisco (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 992, 999-1000 ; Bradbury v. Superior Ct. (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 1108, 1116 .) 11 Relying on Flatley, Barth attempts to avoid the reach of the anti-SLAPP statute by claiming the act of arresting a person without probable cause falls under the illegality exception to protected speech and conduct. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
California-American Water Co. v. Marina Coast Water Dist.
green
1 sentence2022(Cal-Am Two, supra, 18 Cal.App.5th at pp. 571, 579.) In its opening brief here, Cal-Am made a four-part argument regarding why the void ab initio status of the WPA did not retroactively render the 32 dispute resolution procedure in that agreement inapplicable. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Dietz v. Meisenheimer & Herron
green
1 sentence2021(E.g., Lonely Maiden Productions, LLC v. GoldenTree Asset Management, LP (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 368, 384 ; Dietz v. Meisenheimer & Herron (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 771, 800 .) In the absence of any citations to the appellate record, LaPierre has forfeited the arguments that (1) “conclusive evidence of the violation of any state statute is sufficient to trigger application of the illegality exception,” (2) defendants breached an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by filing an action they did not believe was legally tenable, (3) defendants violated Insurance Code section 790.03, subdiv | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Lonely Maiden Productions v. Goldentree Asset Management
green
1 sentence2021(E.g., Lonely Maiden Productions, LLC v. GoldenTree Asset Management, LP (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 368, 384 ; Dietz v. Meisenheimer & Herron (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 771, 800 .) In the absence of any citations to the appellate record, LaPierre has forfeited the arguments that (1) “conclusive evidence of the violation of any state statute is sufficient to trigger application of the illegality exception,” (2) defendants breached an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by filing an action they did not believe was legally tenable, (3) defendants violated Insurance Code section 790.03, subdiv | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Mitchell
green
1 sentence2021(See Mitchell, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 185 ; compare Hill, supra, 185 Cal.App.3d at p. 833 [illegal sentence].) McCowan makes no claim the 6 sentence imposed and reflected in the sentencing transcript and minute order was illegal or erroneous. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Preston v. Ferrer
green
1 sentence2020“A recurring question under § 2 [of the FAA] is who should decide whether ‘grounds . . . exist at law or in equity’ to invalidate an arbitration agreement.” (Preston, supra, 552 U.S. at p. 353 .) As the United States Supreme Court has held, “Challenges to the validity of arbitration agreements . . . can be divided into two types,” namely, “challenges specifically the validity of the agreement to arbitrate” and the “other challenges the contract as a whole, either on a ground that directly affects the entire agreement (e.g., the agreement was fraudulently induced), or on the ground that the ill | 1 | 2020–2020 |
G.R. v. Intelligator
green
1 sentence2020(G.R. v. Intelligator (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 606, 616 ; Mendoza v. ADP Screening & Selection Services, Inc. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1644, 1654 .) Even if the filing of duplicative mechanic’s liens is statutorily unauthorized, it is not criminal and does not fit the illegality exception. 10 In public works projects like that at issue in A.F. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Malek v. Blue Cross of California
green
1 sentence2020However, “[t]he progress of the arbitration is not material when considering a change in the law affecting whether the arbitral forum was a correct one.” (Malek v. Blue Cross of California (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 44, 60 .) Further, Adir had raised the same illegality challenge to the arbitration provision in the trial court in 2015 and before the arbitration panel in 2016. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Sosa v. DIRECTV, Inc.
green
1 sentence2020The case he cites, Sosa v. DIRECTV, Inc. (9th Cir. 2006) 437 F.3d 923 , does not address application of the illegality exception to section 425.16. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Collier v. Harris green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
At&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers
green
1 sentence2020In contrast, in Nielsen, the same illegality defense also invalidated the entire agreement. ( Nielsen, supra, 22 Cal.App.5th at p. 1110 .) 28 Communications Workers (1986) 475 U.S. 643, 648 ; see Rent-A- Center, supra, 561 U.S. at p. 67 ; First Options of Chicago, Inc. v Kaplan (1995) 514 U.S. 938, 943 .) Section 2 of the FAA provides: “A written provision in . . . a contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising out of such contract . . . shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in e | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Luxor Cabs, Inc. v. Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Co. green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Jackpot Harvesting, Inc. v. Applied Underwriters, Inc. green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Nielsen Contracting, Inc. v. Applied Underwriters, Inc.
green
2 sentences2020In contrast, in Nielsen, the same illegality defense also invalidated the entire agreement. ( Nielsen, supra, 22 Cal.App.5th at p. 1110 .) 28 Communications Workers (1986) 475 U.S. 643, 648 ; see Rent-A- Center, supra, 561 U.S. at p. 67 ; First Options of Chicago, Inc. v Kaplan (1995) 514 U.S. 938, 943 .) Section 2 of the FAA provides: “A written provision in . . . a contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising out of such contract . . . shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in e 2020In contrast, in Nielsen, the same illegality defense also invalidated the entire agreement. ( Nielsen, supra, 22 Cal.App.5th at p. 1110 .) 28 Communications Workers (1986) 475 U.S. 643, 648 ; see Rent-A- Center, supra, 561 U.S. at p. 67 ; First Options of Chicago, Inc. v Kaplan (1995) 514 U.S. 938, 943 .) Section 2 of the FAA provides: “A written provision in . . . a contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising out of such contract . . . shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in e | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Volt Info. Sciences, Inc. v. Bd. of Trustees of Leland Stanford Jr. U. green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY v. Universal Paragon Corp. green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Green v. Mt. Diablo Hospital District green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Ahdout v. Hekmatjah green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Bianco v. Superior Court green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Cronus Investments, Inc. v. Concierge Services green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Nwosu v. Uba green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| City of Santa Maria v. Adam green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Bergstein v. Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Snibbe v. Superior Court green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Estate of Prieto green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Lewis v. Wainscott neutral | 1 | 1959–1959 |
| Rued v. Cooper green | 1 | 1930–1930 |
| Richards v. Fraser green | 1 | 1930–1930 |
| Wiegel v. Pulaski County green | 1 | 1914–1914 |
| Keller v. Hyde neutral | 1 | 1914–1914 |
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.
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.