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.
5 California opinions name it 1 courts 2013–2026 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.green2 sentences2016“It is true . . . that, as a general matter, orders granting a new trial are examined for abuse of discretion. [Citations.] [¶] But it is also true that any determination underlying any order is scrutinized under the test appropriate to such determination.” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 859 [ 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 841 , 24 P.3d 493 ].) Thus, a trial court has no discretion to grant a new trial on the basis of error in law unless its original ruling was erroneous as a matter of law. 2016“It is true . . . that, as a general matter, orders granting a new trial are examined for abuse of discretion. [Citations.] [¶] But it is also true that any determination underlying any order is scrutinized under the test appropriate to such determination.” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 859 [ 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 841 , 24 P.3d 493 ].) Thus, a trial court has no discretion to grant a new trial on the basis of error in law unless its original ruling was erroneous as a matter of law. | 2 | 3 |
Tun v. Wells Fargo Dealer Services, Inc.green2 sentences2026Co. (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 391, 397 ; see also Tun v. Wells Fargo Dealer Services, Inc. (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 309, 323 .) “Where a new trial is granted on the basis of legal error, we must first determine 3 The fact that the trial court judge who heard the motion for new trial was not the same judge who ruled on the motions in limine or presided at trial did not limit the judge’s authority in ruling on the motion for new trial. 2026Co. (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 391, 397 ; see also Tun v. Wells Fargo Dealer Services, Inc. (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 309, 323 .) “Where a new trial is granted on the basis of legal error, we must first determine 3 The fact that the trial court judge who heard the motion for new trial was not the same judge who ruled on the motions in limine or presided at trial did not limit the judge’s authority in ruling on the motion for new trial. | 2 | 2 |
Donlen v. Ford Motor Co.green2 sentences2026(Sandco American, Inc. v. Notrica (1990) 216 Cal.App.3d 1495 , 1508–1509.) 13 whether the ruling the trial court claims was made in error is as a matter of law truly error.” (Donlen v. Ford Motor Co. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138, 147 (Donlen).) If the original order was legally correct, the new trial order was an abuse of discretion and is properly reversed. 2026(Sandco American, Inc. v. Notrica (1990) 216 Cal.App.3d 1495 , 1508–1509.) 13 whether the ruling the trial court claims was made in error is as a matter of law truly error.” (Donlen v. Ford Motor Co. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138, 147 (Donlen).) If the original order was legally correct, the new trial order was an abuse of discretion and is properly reversed. | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ramirez v. USAA Casualty Insurance
green
2 sentences2026Co. (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 391, 397 ; see also Tun v. Wells Fargo Dealer Services, Inc. (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 309, 323 .) “Where a new trial is granted on the basis of legal error, we must first determine 3 The fact that the trial court judge who heard the motion for new trial was not the same judge who ruled on the motions in limine or presided at trial did not limit the judge’s authority in ruling on the motion for new trial. 2026Co. (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 391, 397 ; see also Tun v. Wells Fargo Dealer Services, Inc. (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 309, 323 .) “Where a new trial is granted on the basis of legal error, we must first determine 3 The fact that the trial court judge who heard the motion for new trial was not the same judge who ruled on the motions in limine or presided at trial did not limit the judge’s authority in ruling on the motion for new trial. | 2 | 2026–2026 |
Sandco American, Inc. v. Notrica
green
2 sentences2026(Sandco American, Inc. v. Notrica (1990) 216 Cal.App.3d 1495 , 1508–1509.) 13 whether the ruling the trial court claims was made in error is as a matter of law truly error.” (Donlen v. Ford Motor Co. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138, 147 (Donlen).) If the original order was legally correct, the new trial order was an abuse of discretion and is properly reversed. 2026(Sandco American, Inc. v. Notrica (1990) 216 Cal.App.3d 1495 , 1508–1509.) 13 whether the ruling the trial court claims was made in error is as a matter of law truly error.” (Donlen v. Ford Motor Co. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138, 147 (Donlen).) If the original order was legally correct, the new trial order was an abuse of discretion and is properly reversed. | 2 | 2026–2026 |
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.