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 2 courts 1969–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Flood v. Templetongreen2 sentences1999(United States v. Throckmorton (1878) 98 U.S. 61, 65-66 [ 25 L.Ed. 93, 95 ]; Estate of Sanders (1985) 40 Cal.3d 607, 614 [ 221 Cal.Rptr. 432 , 710 P.2d 232 ]; In re Marriage of Modnick, supra, 33 Cal.3d at pp. 903-910; Flood v. Templeton (1907) 152 Cal. 148, 157 [ 92 P. 78 ]; In re Marriage of Brennan (1981) 124 Cal.App.3d 598, 604-607 [ 177 Cal.Rptr. 520 ].) A finding of extrinsic fraud does not require that a party actually be physically prevented from appearing at a conference or hearing, as long as the fraudulent promise to settle or drop a litigated matter causes the party to forego an op 1999(United States v. Throckmorton (1878) 98 U.S. 61, 65-66 [ 25 L.Ed. 93, 95 ]; Estate of Sanders (1985) 40 Cal.3d 607, 614 [ 221 Cal.Rptr. 432 , 710 P.2d 232 ]; In re Marriage of Modnick, supra, 33 Cal.3d at pp. 903-910; Flood v. Templeton (1907) 152 Cal. 148, 157 [ 92 P. 78 ]; In re Marriage of Brennan (1981) 124 Cal.App.3d 598, 604-607 [ 177 Cal.Rptr. 520 ].) A finding of extrinsic fraud does not require that a party actually be physically prevented from appearing at a conference or hearing, as long as the fraudulent promise to settle or drop a litigated matter causes the party to forego an op | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Throckmortongreen2 sentences1999(United States v. Throckmorton (1878) 98 U.S. 61, 65-66 [ 25 L.Ed. 93, 95 ]; Estate of Sanders (1985) 40 Cal.3d 607, 614 [ 221 Cal.Rptr. 432 , 710 P.2d 232 ]; In re Marriage of Modnick, supra, 33 Cal.3d at pp. 903-910; Flood v. Templeton (1907) 152 Cal. 148, 157 [ 92 P. 78 ]; In re Marriage of Brennan (1981) 124 Cal.App.3d 598, 604-607 [ 177 Cal.Rptr. 520 ].) A finding of extrinsic fraud does not require that a party actually be physically prevented from appearing at a conference or hearing, as long as the fraudulent promise to settle or drop a litigated matter causes the party to forego an op 1999(United States v. Throckmorton (1878) 98 U.S. 61, 65-66 [ 25 L.Ed. 93, 95 ]; Estate of Sanders (1985) 40 Cal.3d 607, 614 [ 221 Cal.Rptr. 432 , 710 P.2d 232 ]; In re Marriage of Modnick, supra, 33 Cal.3d at pp. 903-910; Flood v. Templeton (1907) 152 Cal. 148, 157 [ 92 P. 78 ]; In re Marriage of Brennan (1981) 124 Cal.App.3d 598, 604-607 [ 177 Cal.Rptr. 520 ].) A finding of extrinsic fraud does not require that a party actually be physically prevented from appearing at a conference or hearing, as long as the fraudulent promise to settle or drop a litigated matter causes the party to forego an op | 1 | 1 |
In Re Marriage of Brennangreen2 sentences1999(United States v. Throckmorton (1878) 98 U.S. 61, 65-66 [ 25 L.Ed. 93, 95 ]; Estate of Sanders (1985) 40 Cal.3d 607, 614 [ 221 Cal.Rptr. 432 , 710 P.2d 232 ]; In re Marriage of Modnick, supra, 33 Cal.3d at pp. 903-910; Flood v. Templeton (1907) 152 Cal. 148, 157 [ 92 P. 78 ]; In re Marriage of Brennan (1981) 124 Cal.App.3d 598, 604-607 [ 177 Cal.Rptr. 520 ].) A finding of extrinsic fraud does not require that a party actually be physically prevented from appearing at a conference or hearing, as long as the fraudulent promise to settle or drop a litigated matter causes the party to forego an op 1999(United States v. Throckmorton (1878) 98 U.S. 61, 65-66 [ 25 L.Ed. 93, 95 ]; Estate of Sanders (1985) 40 Cal.3d 607, 614 [ 221 Cal.Rptr. 432 , 710 P.2d 232 ]; In re Marriage of Modnick, supra, 33 Cal.3d at pp. 903-910; Flood v. Templeton (1907) 152 Cal. 148, 157 [ 92 P. 78 ]; In re Marriage of Brennan (1981) 124 Cal.App.3d 598, 604-607 [ 177 Cal.Rptr. 520 ].) A finding of extrinsic fraud does not require that a party actually be physically prevented from appearing at a conference or hearing, as long as the fraudulent promise to settle or drop a litigated matter causes the party to forego an op | 1 | 1 |
Estate of Sandersgreen2 sentences1999(United States v. Throckmorton (1878) 98 U.S. 61, 65-66 [ 25 L.Ed. 93, 95 ]; Estate of Sanders (1985) 40 Cal.3d 607, 614 [ 221 Cal.Rptr. 432 , 710 P.2d 232 ]; In re Marriage of Modnick, supra, 33 Cal.3d at pp. 903-910; Flood v. Templeton (1907) 152 Cal. 148, 157 [ 92 P. 78 ]; In re Marriage of Brennan (1981) 124 Cal.App.3d 598, 604-607 [ 177 Cal.Rptr. 520 ].) A finding of extrinsic fraud does not require that a party actually be physically prevented from appearing at a conference or hearing, as long as the fraudulent promise to settle or drop a litigated matter causes the party to forego an op 1999(United States v. Throckmorton (1878) 98 U.S. 61, 65-66 [ 25 L.Ed. 93, 95 ]; Estate of Sanders (1985) 40 Cal.3d 607, 614 [ 221 Cal.Rptr. 432 , 710 P.2d 232 ]; In re Marriage of Modnick, supra, 33 Cal.3d at pp. 903-910; Flood v. Templeton (1907) 152 Cal. 148, 157 [ 92 P. 78 ]; In re Marriage of Brennan (1981) 124 Cal.App.3d 598, 604-607 [ 177 Cal.Rptr. 520 ].) A finding of extrinsic fraud does not require that a party actually be physically prevented from appearing at a conference or hearing, as long as the fraudulent promise to settle or drop a litigated matter causes the party to forego an op | 1 | 1 |
Dondi Properties Corp. v. Commerce Savings & Loan Ass'ngreen2 sentences1998(Nevada Power Co. v. Monsanto Co. (D.Nev. 1993) 151 F.R.D. 118, 120 ; Tarkett, Inc. v. Congoleum Corp. (E.D.Pa. 1992) 144 F.R.D. 282, 285-286 ; Dondi Properties Corp. v. Commerce Sav. and Loan Ass’n (N.D.Tex. 1988) 121 F.R.D. 284, 289 [“[t]he purpose of the conference requirement is to promote a frank exchange between counsel to resolve issues by agreement or to at least narrow and focus the matters in controversy before judicial resolution is sought”].) Some federal courts have lamented that, “in many instances the [informal] conference requirement seems to have evolved into a pro forma matte 1998(Nevada Power Co. v. Monsanto Co. (D.Nev. 1993) 151 F.R.D. 118, 120 ; Tarkett, Inc. v. Congoleum Corp. (E.D.Pa. 1992) 144 F.R.D. 282, 285-286 ; Dondi Properties Corp. v. Commerce Sav. and Loan Ass’n (N.D.Tex. 1988) 121 F.R.D. 284, 289 [“[t]he purpose of the conference requirement is to promote a frank exchange between counsel to resolve issues by agreement or to at least narrow and focus the matters in controversy before judicial resolution is sought”].) Some federal courts have lamented that, “in many instances the [informal] conference requirement seems to have evolved into a pro forma matte | 1 | 1 |
Mooney v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1969(Mooney v. Superior Court, 130 Cal.App. 521, 522 [ 20 P.2d 106 ].) While we recognize that circumstances might be presented in which a defendant might be prejudiced by his absence from a conference at which immunity is granted a codefendant, we find no such prejudice here. 1969(Mooney v. Superior Court, 130 Cal.App. 521, 522 [ 20 P.2d 106 ].) While we recognize that circumstances might be presented in which a defendant might be prejudiced by his absence from a conference at which immunity is granted a codefendant, we find no such prejudice here. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Perry
green
1 sentence2022We have repeatedly held that defendants “may ordinarily be excluded from conferences on questions of law, even if those questions are critical to the outcome of the case, because the defendant’s presence would not contribute to the fairness of the proceeding.” (People v. Perry, supra, 38 Cal.4th at p. 312 .) These include “conference[s] on jury instructions.” (Ibid.) Excluding Miranda-Guerrero from this conference was not error. 5. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Tarkett, Inc. v. Congoleum Corp.
green
1 sentence1998(Nevada Power Co. v. Monsanto Co. (D.Nev. 1993) 151 F.R.D. 118, 120 ; Tarkett, Inc. v. Congoleum Corp. (E.D.Pa. 1992) 144 F.R.D. 282, 285-286 ; Dondi Properties Corp. v. Commerce Sav. and Loan Ass’n (N.D.Tex. 1988) 121 F.R.D. 284, 289 [“[t]he purpose of the conference requirement is to promote a frank exchange between counsel to resolve issues by agreement or to at least narrow and focus the matters in controversy before judicial resolution is sought”].) Some federal courts have lamented that, “in many instances the [informal] conference requirement seems to have evolved into a pro forma matte | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Nevada Power Co. v. Monsanto Co.
green
2 sentences1998(Nevada Power Co. v. Monsanto Co. (D.Nev. 1993) 151 F.R.D. 118, 120 ; Tarkett, Inc. v. Congoleum Corp. (E.D.Pa. 1992) 144 F.R.D. 282, 285-286 ; Dondi Properties Corp. v. Commerce Sav. and Loan Ass’n (N.D.Tex. 1988) 121 F.R.D. 284, 289 [“[t]he purpose of the conference requirement is to promote a frank exchange between counsel to resolve issues by agreement or to at least narrow and focus the matters in controversy before judicial resolution is sought”].) Some federal courts have lamented that, “in many instances the [informal] conference requirement seems to have evolved into a pro forma matte 1998(Nevada Power Co. v. Monsanto Co. (D.Nev. 1993) 151 F.R.D. 118, 120 ; Tarkett, Inc. v. Congoleum Corp. (E.D.Pa. 1992) 144 F.R.D. 282, 285-286 ; Dondi Properties Corp. v. Commerce Sav. and Loan Ass’n (N.D.Tex. 1988) 121 F.R.D. 284, 289 [“[t]he purpose of the conference requirement is to promote a frank exchange between counsel to resolve issues by agreement or to at least narrow and focus the matters in controversy before judicial resolution is sought”].) Some federal courts have lamented that, “in many instances the [informal] conference requirement seems to have evolved into a pro forma matte | 1 | 1998–1998 |
People v. Johnson
green
1 sentence1997However, that section directs an applicant to attend “a conference hearing including a mandatory settlement conference” and does not mention the applicant’s attorney. 3 (Cal. Workers’ Compensation Practice (Cont.Ed.Bar 1985) § 6.38, p. 217.) 4 Rosenstock v. Municipal Court (1976) 61 Cal.App.3d 1 [ 132 Cal.Rptr. 59 ]. 5 Runnion’s due process and equal protection claims address only the contempt order, not sanctions. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Rosenstock v. Municipal Court
green
1 sentence1997However, that section directs an applicant to attend “a conference hearing including a mandatory settlement conference” and does not mention the applicant’s attorney. 3 (Cal. Workers’ Compensation Practice (Cont.Ed.Bar 1985) § 6.38, p. 217.) 4 Rosenstock v. Municipal Court (1976) 61 Cal.App.3d 1 [ 132 Cal.Rptr. 59 ]. 5 Runnion’s due process and equal protection claims address only the contempt order, not sanctions. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
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.