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 1933–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Wheat v. Bank of Californiagreen2 sentences1933Let the claim be conceded, still the finding to which we have referred has support in the evidence, and that finding absolutely points the judgment against appellant, whatever may be the real facts as to other matters alleged in the complaint.” (Wheat *115 v. Bank of California, 119 Cal. 4, 7 [ 50 Pac. 842 , 51 Pac. 47 ].) (4) After order for judgment was made, and prior to the signing and filing of findings, defendant made a motion to set aside the order for judgment and reopen the case for further hearing of testimony, based upon the discovery of certain facts set forth in an affidavit of on 1933Let the claim be conceded, still the finding to which we have referred has support in the evidence, and that finding absolutely points the judgment against appellant, whatever may be the real facts as to other matters alleged in the complaint.” (Wheat *115 v. Bank of California, 119 Cal. 4, 7 [ 50 Pac. 842 , 51 Pac. 47 ].) (4) After order for judgment was made, and prior to the signing and filing of findings, defendant made a motion to set aside the order for judgment and reopen the case for further hearing of testimony, based upon the discovery of certain facts set forth in an affidavit of on | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Riverside Cnty. Dep't of Pub. Soc. Servs. v. S.A. (In re N.G.)
green
1 sentence2022(See In re N.G. (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 474, 484 .) We conditionally reverse the termination order and remand the case for further inquiry under the Act. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Thurmond v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences1990It reads: “If the obligee is not present at the hearing and the obligor denies owing the duty of support alleged in the complaint or offers evidence which constitutes a defense, the court, upon request of either party, shall continue the case for further hearing and the submission of evidence by both parties either by deposition or personal appearance.” (Italics added.) Donald’s argument that section 1683 deprived the court of any discretion to deny his request for continuance runs wholly contrary to the California Supreme Court’s interpretation of analogous language in Thurmond v. Superior Co 1990It reads: “If the obligee is not present at the hearing and the obligor denies owing the duty of support alleged in the complaint or offers evidence which constitutes a defense, the court, upon request of either party, shall continue the case for further hearing and the submission of evidence by both parties either by deposition or personal appearance.” (Italics added.) Donald’s argument that section 1683 deprived the court of any discretion to deny his request for continuance runs wholly contrary to the California Supreme Court’s interpretation of analogous language in Thurmond v. Superior Co | 1 | 1990–1990 |
In Re Marriage of Corriveau
neutral
1 sentence1986It pointed out that an element of unfairness to the husband would exist “if apportionment between the two systems is possible and appropriate .”( 159 Cal.App.3d at p. 842 , italics in original.) The court remanded the case for further hearing on the setoff apportionment issue. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Redevelopment Agency of City & County of San Francisco v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences1971I At the hearing on the petitioner’s objections to the sufficiency of the notice the trial judge voiced the views, subsequently incorporated in the order and quoted above, as follows: “So the first matter that obviously has to be determined is the extent and scope of the issues now properly before this Court in light of that decision [Redevelopment Agency v. Superior Court (1970) 13 Cal.App.3d 561 ( 91 Cal.Rptr. 886 )]. 1971I At the hearing on the petitioner’s objections to the sufficiency of the notice the trial judge voiced the views, subsequently incorporated in the order and quoted above, as follows: “So the first matter that obviously has to be determined is the extent and scope of the issues now properly before this Court in light of that decision [Redevelopment Agency v. Superior Court (1970) 13 Cal.App.3d 561 ( 91 Cal.Rptr. 886 )]. | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Sullivan v. Crew
green
1 sentence1933Let the claim be conceded, still the finding to which we have referred has support in the evidence, and that finding absolutely points the judgment against appellant, whatever may be the real facts as to other matters alleged in the complaint.” (Wheat *115 v. Bank of California, 119 Cal. 4, 7 [ 50 Pac. 842 , 51 Pac. 47 ].) (4) After order for judgment was made, and prior to the signing and filing of findings, defendant made a motion to set aside the order for judgment and reopen the case for further hearing of testimony, based upon the discovery of certain facts set forth in an affidavit of on | 1 | 1933–1933 |
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.