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 2007–2026 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Greenup v. Rodmangreen2 sentences2022(Airs Aromatics, supra, 23 Cal.App.5th at p. 1025; Electronic Funds, at p. 1177.) “If [they] pursue[] the latter option, ‘the default will be vacated, entitling defendants to either attack the pleadings, or answer the amended complaint.’ (Ibid.; see Greenup, supra, 42 Cal.3d at p. 830 .)” (Airs Aromatics, at p. 1025.) DISPOSITION The order denying Chang’s motion to set aside the default judgment pursuant to section 473, subdivision (d) is reversed, and the default judgment is vacated. 2022(Airs Aromatics, supra, 23 Cal.App.5th at p. 1025; Electronic Funds, at p. 1177.) “If [they] pursue[] the latter option, ‘the default will be vacated, entitling defendants to either attack the pleadings, or answer the amended complaint.’ (Ibid.; see Greenup, supra, 42 Cal.3d at p. 830 .)” (Airs Aromatics, at p. 1025.) DISPOSITION The order denying Chang’s motion to set aside the default judgment pursuant to section 473, subdivision (d) is reversed, and the default judgment is vacated. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Nwosu v. Uba
green
1 sentence2026(See Nwosu, supra, 122 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1246-1247.) Nonetheless, even if we were to reach the merits of Chang’s challenge—aided by Chernick’s augmentation of the record to fill in the gaps left by Chang—we would conclude that Chang fails to carry her burden of demonstrating the family court abused its discretion in denying her March 2024 request to modify child support. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Falahati v. Kondo
green
1 sentence2022(Air Aromatics, supra, 23 Cal.App.5th at p. 1023; Falahati v. Kondo, supra, 127 Cal.App.4th at p. 831 .)11 C. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v. University of Southern California
green
1 sentence2022(See Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v. University of Southern California (2012) 55 Cal.4th 747, 773 .) Beyond that, we also agree with Judge Wiss’s alternative ground for denying Dr. Chang’s motion, that the requests went “to the ultimate issue in the case.” Recently, in Universal Home Improvement, Inc. v. Robertson (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 116 , we addressed a similar issue of requests for admissions that go to the heart of the adversary’s case—indeed, requests, like those here, served very early in the litigation. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Chang v. Lederman
green
1 sentence2016However, the same test was applied in Chang and the court held that even if all five other factors weighed in favor of Chang, the sixth factor (undue burden on the profession from imposing liability) required a rejection of Chang's claim. ( Chang, supra, 172 Cal.App.4th at pp. 83-84.) Sutton further argues that his case is distinguishable from Chang because there is no conflict of interest relating to Ruth's intended beneficiaries. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Wiener v. Southcoast Childcare Centers, Inc.
green
2 sentences2007II STANDARD OF REVIEW We review a grant of summary judgment de novo. ( Wiener v. Southcoast Childcare Centers, Inc. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1138, 1142 , 12 Cal.Rptr.3d 615 , 88 P.3d 517 ( Wiener) . ) In performing our de novo review, we employ a three-step analysis. *766 "First, we identify the issues raised by the pleadings. 2007II STANDARD OF REVIEW We review a grant of summary judgment de novo. ( Wiener v. Southcoast Childcare Centers, Inc. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1138, 1142 , 12 Cal.Rptr.3d 615 , 88 P.3d 517 ( Wiener) . ) In performing our de novo review, we employ a three-step analysis. *766 "First, we identify the issues raised by the pleadings. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
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.