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 1918–1970 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Chase v. Troutgreen2 sentences1963It is a sufficient answer here to note that “ [t]he fact that the proceeding was fatally defective is not alone an insurmountable obstacle to the exercise of the curative power; for ... if it was not fatally defective it would stand in no need of the healing power.” (Miller v. McKenna, 23 Cal.2d 774, 781 [ 147 P.2d 531 ].) Further, “A curative statute or clause may preclude all investigation except ‘the single inquiry whether, in the case presented, the effect of applying the statute is to deprive the party of his property without due process of law.’ ” (Chase v. Trout, 146 Cal. 350, 359 [ 80 1963It is a sufficient answer here to note that “ [t]he fact that the proceeding was fatally defective is not alone an insurmountable obstacle to the exercise of the curative power; for ... if it was not fatally defective it would stand in no need of the healing power.” (Miller v. McKenna, 23 Cal.2d 774, 781 [ 147 P.2d 531 ].) Further, “A curative statute or clause may preclude all investigation except ‘the single inquiry whether, in the case presented, the effect of applying the statute is to deprive the party of his property without due process of law.’ ” (Chase v. Trout, 146 Cal. 350, 359 [ 80 | 1 | 3 |
Havens v. Weirgreen1 sentence1970The correct proposition is, that as the legislature has power to devise any scheme for the assessment and levy of taxes for local improvements, provided such scheme includes such notice and opportunity for hearing to the owner of property taxed as will be sufficient to constitute the due process of law required by the constitution, and otherwise complies with constitutional limitations and restrictions, so the legislature, by a curative clause in the law establishing the scheme, may provide that the issuance of a bond, or the execution of a deed, in the enforcement of such levy or assessment, | 1 | 1 |
Crommelin v. Finngreen2 sentences1970The correct proposition is, that as the legislature has power to devise any scheme for the assessment and levy of taxes for local improvements, provided such scheme includes such notice and opportunity for hearing to the owner of property taxed as will be sufficient to constitute the due process of law required by the constitution, and otherwise complies with constitutional limitations and restrictions, so the legislature, by a curative clause in the law establishing the scheme, may provide that the issuance of a bond, or the execution of a deed, in the enforcement of such levy or assessment, 1970The correct proposition is, that as the legislature has power to devise any scheme for the assessment and levy of taxes for local improvements, provided such scheme includes such notice and opportunity for hearing to the owner of property taxed as will be sufficient to constitute the due process of law required by the constitution, and otherwise complies with constitutional limitations and restrictions, so the legislature, by a curative clause in the law establishing the scheme, may provide that the issuance of a bond, or the execution of a deed, in the enforcement of such levy or assessment, | 1 | 1 |
Hoffman v. City of Red Bluffgreen2 sentences1968“The rule stated in Chase is: ‘ “If the thing wanting or omitted which constitutes the defect is something the necessity for which the legislature might have dispensed with by prior statutes, or if something has been done, or done in a particular way, which the legislature might have made immaterial, the omission or irregular act may be cured by a subsequent statute.” . . .’ ” (Hoffman v. City of Red Bluff, 63 Cal.2d 584, 591-592 [ 47 Cal.Rptr. 553 , 407 P.2d 857 ].) In In re Redevelopment Plan for Bunker Hill, 61 Cal.2d 21 , it was stated at page 44 [ 37 Cal.Rptr. 74 , 389 P.2d 538 ], also qu 1968“The rule stated in Chase is: ‘ “If the thing wanting or omitted which constitutes the defect is something the necessity for which the legislature might have dispensed with by prior statutes, or if something has been done, or done in a particular way, which the legislature might have made immaterial, the omission or irregular act may be cured by a subsequent statute.” . . .’ ” (Hoffman v. City of Red Bluff, 63 Cal.2d 584, 591-592 [ 47 Cal.Rptr. 553 , 407 P.2d 857 ].) In In re Redevelopment Plan for Bunker Hill, 61 Cal.2d 21 , it was stated at page 44 [ 37 Cal.Rptr. 74 , 389 P.2d 538 ], also qu | 1 | 1 |
People ex rel. Desert Hot Springs County Water District v. Coachella Valley County Water Districtgreen2 sentences1968Desert etc. Water Dist. v. Coachella etc. Water Dist., 232 Cal.App.2d 685, at p. 697 [ 43 Cal.Rptr. 18 ].) Since it appears to be quite clear that the irregularities occurring after the election were mere irregularities of procedure which irregularities did not interfere with the calling of the election, the election, or the actual count of the votes therein, the issuance of the bonds by the defendant district was validated by chapter 904 of the statutes of 1967. 1968Desert etc. Water Dist. v. Coachella etc. Water Dist., 232 Cal.App.2d 685, at p. 697 [ 43 Cal.Rptr. 18 ].) Since it appears to be quite clear that the irregularities occurring after the election were mere irregularities of procedure which irregularities did not interfere with the calling of the election, the election, or the actual count of the votes therein, the issuance of the bonds by the defendant district was validated by chapter 904 of the statutes of 1967. | 1 | 1 |
Miller v. McKennagreen2 sentences1963It is a sufficient answer here to note that “ [t]he fact that the proceeding was fatally defective is not alone an insurmountable obstacle to the exercise of the curative power; for ... if it was not fatally defective it would stand in no need of the healing power.” (Miller v. McKenna, 23 Cal.2d 774, 781 [ 147 P.2d 531 ].) Further, “A curative statute or clause may preclude all investigation except ‘the single inquiry whether, in the case presented, the effect of applying the statute is to deprive the party of his property without due process of law.’ ” (Chase v. Trout, 146 Cal. 350, 359 [ 80 1963It is a sufficient answer here to note that “ [t]he fact that the proceeding was fatally defective is not alone an insurmountable obstacle to the exercise of the curative power; for ... if it was not fatally defective it would stand in no need of the healing power.” (Miller v. McKenna, 23 Cal.2d 774, 781 [ 147 P.2d 531 ].) Further, “A curative statute or clause may preclude all investigation except ‘the single inquiry whether, in the case presented, the effect of applying the statute is to deprive the party of his property without due process of law.’ ” (Chase v. Trout, 146 Cal. 350, 359 [ 80 | 1 | 1 |
Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Board of Supervisorsgreen1 sentence1963It is a sufficient answer here to note that “ [t]he fact that the proceeding was fatally defective is not alone an insurmountable obstacle to the exercise of the curative power; for ... if it was not fatally defective it would stand in no need of the healing power.” (Miller v. McKenna, 23 Cal.2d 774, 781 [ 147 P.2d 531 ].) Further, “A curative statute or clause may preclude all investigation except ‘the single inquiry whether, in the case presented, the effect of applying the statute is to deprive the party of his property without due process of law.’ ” (Chase v. Trout, 146 Cal. 350, 359 [ 80 | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re Redevelopment Plan for Bunker Hill v. Goldman
green
2 sentences1968“The rule stated in Chase is: ‘ “If the thing wanting or omitted which constitutes the defect is something the necessity for which the legislature might have dispensed with by prior statutes, or if something has been done, or done in a particular way, which the legislature might have made immaterial, the omission or irregular act may be cured by a subsequent statute.” . . .’ ” (Hoffman v. City of Red Bluff, 63 Cal.2d 584, 591-592 [ 47 Cal.Rptr. 553 , 407 P.2d 857 ].) In In re Redevelopment Plan for Bunker Hill, 61 Cal.2d 21 , it was stated at page 44 [ 37 Cal.Rptr. 74 , 389 P.2d 538 ], also qu 1968“The rule stated in Chase is: ‘ “If the thing wanting or omitted which constitutes the defect is something the necessity for which the legislature might have dispensed with by prior statutes, or if something has been done, or done in a particular way, which the legislature might have made immaterial, the omission or irregular act may be cured by a subsequent statute.” . . .’ ” (Hoffman v. City of Red Bluff, 63 Cal.2d 584, 591-592 [ 47 Cal.Rptr. 553 , 407 P.2d 857 ].) In In re Redevelopment Plan for Bunker Hill, 61 Cal.2d 21 , it was stated at page 44 [ 37 Cal.Rptr. 74 , 389 P.2d 538 ], also qu | 1 | 1968–1968 |
City of Fairfield v. Hutcheon
green
2 sentences1958A curative statute or clause may preclude all investigation except ‘the single inquiry whether, in the ease presented, the effect of applying the statute is to deprive the party of his property without due process of law.’ ” The principles above enunciated in Chase v. Trout have been confirmed repeatedly in succeeding California authorities including City of Fairfield v. Hutcheon, 33 Cal.2d 475 [ 202 P.2d 745 ]. 1958A curative statute or clause may preclude all investigation except ‘the single inquiry whether, in the ease presented, the effect of applying the statute is to deprive the party of his property without due process of law.’ ” The principles above enunciated in Chase v. Trout have been confirmed repeatedly in succeeding California authorities including City of Fairfield v. Hutcheon, 33 Cal.2d 475 [ 202 P.2d 745 ]. | 1 | 1958–1958 |
Imperial Water Co. v. Board of Supervisors
green
2 sentences1918(Imperial Water Co. No. 1 v. Board of Supervisors, 162 Cal. 14, 22 , [ 120 Pac. 780 ].) It may also be noted that the proceedings challenged here have relation only to the organization of the district, and do not involve any assessment against property, and that such proceedings are not subject to the rule of strict construction. 1918(Imperial Water Co. No. 1 v. Board of Supervisors, 162 Cal. 14, 22 , [ 120 Pac. 780 ].) It may also be noted that the proceedings challenged here have relation only to the organization of the district, and do not involve any assessment against property, and that such proceedings are not subject to the rule of strict construction. | 1 | 1918–1918 |