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 1987–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
cluster 760231green1 sentence2007(Id. at p. 468; see also In re Chang (9th Cir. 1998) 163 F.3d 1138 , 1140-1141 [debts arising from custody proceeding, for guardian ad litem fees, neutral experts’ fees and health professionals’ expenses, were “in the nature of . . . support”; California law permitted the compensation of such persons in consideration of the child’s best interests, and bankruptcy court correctly concluded the law creating the debt created an obligation of support and was therefore nondischargeable].) This case did not involve debts arising from a custody proceeding. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Lovercampgreen2 sentences1987(See People v. Lovercamp (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 823, 831-832 [ 118 Cal.Rptr. 110 , 69 A.L.R.3d 668 ].) As we stated in People v. Patrick (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 952, 960 [ 179 Cal.Rptr. 276 ]: “. . . although the exact confines of the necessity defense remain clouded, a well-established central element involves the emergency nature of the situation, i.e., the imminence of the greater harm which the illegal act seeks to prevent. [Citation.] The commission of a crime *972 cannot be countenanced where there exists the possibility of some alternate means to alleviate the threatened greater harm. [Cita 1987(See People v. Lovercamp (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 823, 831-832 [ 118 Cal.Rptr. 110 , 69 A.L.R.3d 668 ].) As we stated in People v. Patrick (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 952, 960 [ 179 Cal.Rptr. 276 ]: “. . . although the exact confines of the necessity defense remain clouded, a well-established central element involves the emergency nature of the situation, i.e., the imminence of the greater harm which the illegal act seeks to prevent. [Citation.] The commission of a crime *972 cannot be countenanced where there exists the possibility of some alternate means to alleviate the threatened greater harm. [Cita | 1 | 1 |
People v. Patrickgreen2 sentences1987(See People v. Lovercamp (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 823, 831-832 [ 118 Cal.Rptr. 110 , 69 A.L.R.3d 668 ].) As we stated in People v. Patrick (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 952, 960 [ 179 Cal.Rptr. 276 ]: “. . . although the exact confines of the necessity defense remain clouded, a well-established central element involves the emergency nature of the situation, i.e., the imminence of the greater harm which the illegal act seeks to prevent. [Citation.] The commission of a crime *972 cannot be countenanced where there exists the possibility of some alternate means to alleviate the threatened greater harm. [Cita 1987(See People v. Lovercamp (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 823, 831-832 [ 118 Cal.Rptr. 110 , 69 A.L.R.3d 668 ].) As we stated in People v. Patrick (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 952, 960 [ 179 Cal.Rptr. 276 ]: “. . . although the exact confines of the necessity defense remain clouded, a well-established central element involves the emergency nature of the situation, i.e., the imminence of the greater harm which the illegal act seeks to prevent. [Citation.] The commission of a crime *972 cannot be countenanced where there exists the possibility of some alternate means to alleviate the threatened greater harm. [Cita | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Clinton v. Joshua Hendy Corp.
green
1 sentence2023(Clinton v. Joshua Hendy Corp. (1966) 244 Cal.App.2d 183 , 187– 188 [findings need not be made in proceedings to determine a motion even when affidavits are filed on a question of fact and testimony is taken to augment the affidavits, because section 632 only applies to a “trial.”].) There are some notable exceptions to this general requirement in family law; for example, where the issues are sufficiently important, as in a child custody hearing, a statement of decision must be provided upon timely request regardless of whether the hearing is based on a motion or takes place at trial. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Lassiter v. Department of Social Servs. of Durham Cty.
green
1 sentence2016This case is distinguishable from Lassiter, in which the mother was adequately served with notice of the hearing to terminate her parental rights, she attended the hearing in person, she had retained counsel in a contemporaneous criminal matter but did not mention the termination hearing to him, she had expressly declined to appear at a previous child custody hearing, and counsel “could not have made a determinative difference.” ( Lassiter, supra, 452 U.S. at pp. 21, 33.) In contrast, it is not clear here that Christian’s absence from the proceedings was similarly willful, or that his lack of | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Gideon v. Wainwright
green
2 sentences2009All italics from any quotation from the Rutter Group Family Law Treatise are original to that quotation. 4 Alan told us at oral argument that, given his experience in this litigation, he is reluctant to ever get married again. 5 And, by way of the equitable principle of what is good for the goose et cetera, on remand the trial court should also consider Mary’s newfound financial obligation to pay the full amount of Alan’s appellate cost bill. 6 The title of a book by Anthony Lewis, based on the plight of a pro per litigant more fully explained in Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) 372 U.S. 335 [ 9 L. 2009All italics from any quotation from the Rutter Group Family Law Treatise are original to that quotation. 4 Alan told us at oral argument that, given his experience in this litigation, he is reluctant to ever get married again. 5 And, by way of the equitable principle of what is good for the goose et cetera, on remand the trial court should also consider Mary’s newfound financial obligation to pay the full amount of Alan’s appellate cost bill. 6 The title of a book by Anthony Lewis, based on the plight of a pro per litigant more fully explained in Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) 372 U.S. 335 [ 9 L. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
James C. Booth, Inc. v. Ratcliff (In Re Ratcliff)
green
1 sentence2007In re Ratcliff involved attorney fees incurred during a child custody hearing, and the court held that “a child custody proceeding is always in the nature of child support,” so that “any award of attorneys’ fees against the debtor becomes a nondischargeable debt pursuant to [11 U.S.C.] Section 523(a)(5).” (In re Ratcliff, supra, 195 B.R. at p. 467 .) The court explained that the purpose of the custody proceeding was to determine who could provide the best home for the child, so that fees incurred for the custody hearing were in the nature of child support and nondischargeable. | 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.