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 1991–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Nora v. KADDOgreen1 sentence2016(Kobey, supra, 228 Cal.App.3d at p. 1060 ; accord, Nora v. Kaddo (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 1026, 1029 .) Defendant did not file a cross-petition for an order against plaintiff as permitted by section 527.6, subdivision (h). | 1 | 1 |
Marquez-Luque v. Marquezgreen2 sentences1991(Cf. Marquez-Luque v. Marquez (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1513, 1517 [ 238 Cal.Rptr. 172 ] [In a section 527.6 proceeding, neither that statute nor equity gave the court authority to evict the defendant from his dwelling.].) While we applaud the trial court’s efforts to keep the peace in the highly emotional situation here, we cannot elevate this goal over the basic requirement of due process. 2 The court abused its discretion in imposing mutual restraining orders. 1991(Cf. Marquez-Luque v. Marquez (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1513, 1517 [ 238 Cal.Rptr. 172 ] [In a section 527.6 proceeding, neither that statute nor equity gave the court authority to evict the defendant from his dwelling.].) While we applaud the trial court’s efforts to keep the peace in the highly emotional situation here, we cannot elevate this goal over the basic requirement of due process. 2 The court abused its discretion in imposing mutual restraining orders. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Schraer v. Berkeley Property Owners' Ass'n
green
2 sentences2024DISCUSSION Civil Harassment Injunctions and the Standard of Review Section 527.6 authorizes a person who has suffered harassment to seek a temporary restraining order and an injunction after hearing. (§ 527.6, subd. (a)(1); Schraer v. Berkeley Property Owners’ Assn. (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 719 , 729-730.) The statute defines “ ‘[h]arassment’ ” as follows: “[U]nlawful violence, a credible threat of violence, or a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person that seriously alarms, annoys, or harasses the person, and that serves no legitimate purpose. 2021Section 527.6 authorizes a person who has suffered harassment to seek a temporary restraining order and an injunction after hearing. (§ 527.6, subd. (a)(1); Schraer v. Berkeley Property Owners’ Assn. (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 719 , 729– 730.) “ ‘Harassment’ ” is defined by the statute as “unlawful violence, a credible threat of violence, or a knowing and willful 4 course of conduct directed at a specific person that seriously alarms, annoys, or harasses the person, and that serves no legitimate purpose.” (§ 527.6, subd. (b)(3), italics added.) At the hearing, the judge receives relevant testimony | 5 | 1991–2024 |
Burquet v. Brumbaugh CA2/5
green
1 sentence2021(Burquet v. Brumbaugh (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1140, 1143 .) “[W]hen reviewing a finding that a fact has been proved by clear and convincing evidence, the question before the appellate court is whether the record as a whole contains substantial evidence from which a reasonable fact finder could have found it highly probable that the fact was true.” (Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989 , 995-996.) 2. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Kobey v. Morton
green
2 sentences2016There is no full trial on the merits to follow the issuance of the injunction after the hearing provided by ... section 527.6, 3. subdivision (d).’” ( Kobey, supra, 228 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1059–1060, quoting Schraer, supra, 207 Cal.App.3d at p. 732 .) The Kobey court concluded: “Similarly, we believe section 527.6 calls for the formality of a cross- complaint before the court imposes on the plaintiff ‘what approximates a permanent injunction.’ The court’s inherent power does not extend so far as to encompass an order without a petition to serve as a vehicle for that order. [Citation.] While we a 2016There is no full trial on the merits to follow the issuance of the injunction after the hearing provided by ... section 527.6, 3. subdivision (d).’” ( Kobey, supra, 228 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1059–1060, quoting Schraer, supra, 207 Cal.App.3d at p. 732 .) The Kobey court concluded: “Similarly, we believe section 527.6 calls for the formality of a cross- complaint before the court imposes on the plaintiff ‘what approximates a permanent injunction.’ The court’s inherent power does not extend so far as to encompass an order without a petition to serve as a vehicle for that order. [Citation.] While we a | 1 | 2016–2016 |
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.