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 2008–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bruni v. Didiongreen2 sentences2018Claudia argues that Matthew must be deemed to have had seven days to review the premarital agreement because Paragraph 11(I), inserted by attorney Chernick, stated: "Each of us acknowledges that he/she received this Agreement more than seven days before executing it, and had ample time to review this Agreement with independent legal counsel and other professional advisors before signing it." Claudia relies on Evidence Code section 622, which provides, "The facts recited in a written instrument are conclusively presumed to be true as between the parties thereto, or their successors in interest; 2018Claudia argues that Matthew must be deemed to have had seven days to review the premarital agreement because Paragraph 11(I), inserted by attorney Chernick, stated: "Each of us acknowledges that he/she received this Agreement more than seven days before executing it, and had ample time to review this Agreement with independent legal counsel and other professional advisors before signing it." Claudia relies on Evidence Code section 622, which provides, "The facts recited in a written instrument are conclusively presumed to be true as between the parties thereto, or their successors in interest; | 1 | 3 |
In Re Marriage of Brooks & Robinsonred2 sentences2013Evidence Code section 622 provides that “ ‘facts recited in a written instrument are conclusively presumed to be true as between the parties thereto . . . .’ This section is based upon the doctrine of estoppel by contract; i.e., a party to a contract is generally estopped to deny essential facts recited therein. [Citations.]” (In re Marriage of Brooks & Robinson (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 176, 184 [ 86 Cal.Rptr.3d 624 ].) The Brooks court concluded that the presumption “applies ‘as between the parties’ to written instruments” but not to persons who are not parties to the instrument. 2013Evidence Code section 622 provides that “ ‘facts recited in a written instrument are conclusively presumed to be true as between the parties thereto . . . .’ This section is based upon the doctrine of estoppel by contract; i.e., a party to a contract is generally estopped to deny essential facts recited therein. [Citations.]” (In re Marriage of Brooks & Robinson (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 176, 184 [ 86 Cal.Rptr.3d 624 ].) The Brooks court concluded that the presumption “applies ‘as between the parties’ to written instruments” but not to persons who are not parties to the instrument. | 1 | 1 |
Estate of Wilsongreen2 sentences2008(Estate of Wilson (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 786, 801 [ 134 Cal.Rptr. 749 ]; Gas App. S. Co. v. W B. 2008(Estate of Wilson (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 786, 801 [ 134 Cal.Rptr. 749 ]; Gas App. S. Co. v. W B. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
City of Santa Cruz v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.
green
2 sentences2018Claudia argues that Matthew must be deemed to have had seven days to review the premarital agreement because Paragraph 11(I), inserted by attorney Chernick, stated: "Each of us acknowledges that he/she received this Agreement more than seven days before executing it, and had ample time to review this Agreement with independent legal counsel and other professional advisors before signing it." Claudia relies on Evidence Code section 622, which provides, "The facts recited in a written instrument are conclusively presumed to be true as between the parties thereto, or their successors in interest; 2018Claudia argues that Matthew must be deemed to have had seven days to review the premarital agreement because Paragraph 11(I), inserted by attorney Chernick, stated: "Each of us acknowledges that he/she received this Agreement more than seven days before executing it, and had ample time to review this Agreement with independent legal counsel and other professional advisors before signing it." Claudia relies on Evidence Code section 622, which provides, "The facts recited in a written instrument are conclusively presumed to be true as between the parties thereto, or their successors in interest; | 3 | 2018–2022 |
Citizens Business Bank v. Gevorgian
green
1 sentence2022(Citizens Business Bank v. Gevorgian (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 602, 613 .) 8 Evidence Code section 622 provides that “facts recited in a written instrument are conclusively presumed to be true as between the parties thereto[.]” The statute — which codifies the common law doctrine of estoppel by contract — is based on “ ‘the principle that parties who have expressed their mutual assent are bound by the contents of the instrument they have signed, and may not thereafter claim that its provisions do not express their intentions or understanding.’ ” (In re Marriage of Clarke & Akel (2018) 19 Cal.App. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Clarke v. Akel (In re Clarke)
green
1 sentence2022(Citizens Business Bank v. Gevorgian (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 602, 613 .) 8 Evidence Code section 622 provides that “facts recited in a written instrument are conclusively presumed to be true as between the parties thereto[.]” The statute — which codifies the common law doctrine of estoppel by contract — is based on “ ‘the principle that parties who have expressed their mutual assent are bound by the contents of the instrument they have signed, and may not thereafter claim that its provisions do not express their intentions or understanding.’ ” (In re Marriage of Clarke & Akel (2018) 19 Cal.App. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.