5 California opinions name it 1 courts 1945–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Junkin v. Golden West Foreclosure Service, Inc.green2 sentences2015One is whether there is an absolute obligation of repayment. [Citation.] Another is whether the investor may suffer a risk of loss. [Citation.] Another factor courts consider is whether the investor has any right to participate in management. [Citation.] The identity of the seller is also a factor. ‘If the venture between the parties involves the acquisition of property from a third party, the courts tend to conclude that the arrangement between the parties was a risk capital venture and not a loan.’ [Citation.]” ( Junkin, supra, 180 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1155-1156.) The relevant facts here are e 2015(Id. at pp. 1153-1154.) 9 Among other things, at trial Bennett argued the joint venture exception to the usury laws applied. ( Junkin, supra, 180 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1154-1155.) The trial court agreed, and so did the Court of Appeal. | 2 | 2 |
Barlin v. Barlingreen2 sentences2009(See Hosking v. Spartan Properties, Inc. (1969) 275 Cal.App.2d 152, 156 [ 79 Cal.Rptr. 893 ]; Barlin v. Barlin (1956) 145 Cal.App.2d 390, 393 [ 302 P.2d 457 ].) He contends that since Bennett chose to nonjudicially foreclose his deed of trust, he should be estopped from arguing the joint venture exception applied. 2009(See Hosking v. Spartan Properties, Inc. (1969) 275 Cal.App.2d 152, 156 [ 79 Cal.Rptr. 893 ]; Barlin v. Barlin (1956) 145 Cal.App.2d 390, 393 [ 302 P.2d 457 ].) He contends that since Bennett chose to nonjudicially foreclose his deed of trust, he should be estopped from arguing the joint venture exception applied. | 1 | 1 |
Hosking v. Spartan Properties, Inc.green2 sentences2009(See Hosking v. Spartan Properties, Inc. (1969) 275 Cal.App.2d 152, 156 [ 79 Cal.Rptr. 893 ]; Barlin v. Barlin (1956) 145 Cal.App.2d 390, 393 [ 302 P.2d 457 ].) He contends that since Bennett chose to nonjudicially foreclose his deed of trust, he should be estopped from arguing the joint venture exception applied. 2009(See Hosking v. Spartan Properties, Inc. (1969) 275 Cal.App.2d 152, 156 [ 79 Cal.Rptr. 893 ]; Barlin v. Barlin (1956) 145 Cal.App.2d 390, 393 [ 302 P.2d 457 ].) He contends that since Bennett chose to nonjudicially foreclose his deed of trust, he should be estopped from arguing the joint venture exception applied. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Hoodgreen2 sentences1970The trial court must instruct the jury on the general principles of law relevant to the issues raised by the evidence, even though no request is made, but need not instruct on its own motion on specific points developed at the trial (People v. Hood, 1 Cal.3d 444, 449 [ 82 Cal.Rptr. 618 , 462 P.2d 370 ]). 1970The trial court must instruct the jury on the general principles of law relevant to the issues raised by the evidence, even though no request is made, but need not instruct on its own motion on specific points developed at the trial (People v. Hood, 1 Cal.3d 444, 449 [ 82 Cal.Rptr. 618 , 462 P.2d 370 ]). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Wooton v. Coerber
green
2 sentences2015(Wooton v. Coerber, supra, 213 Cal.App.2d at p. 150 .) Because the joint venture exception removes this transaction from the scope of the usury laws, the jury’s verdict must be reversed on this point. 2015(Wooton v. Coerber, supra, 213 Cal.App.2d at p. 150 .) Because the joint venture exception removes this transaction from the scope of the usury laws, the jury‟s verdict must be reversed on this point. | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Martin v. Ajax Construction Co.
green
1 sentence2009Junkin argues that under cases such as Martin v. Ajax Construction Co., supra, 124 Cal.App.2d 425 (Martin) and Whittemore Homes, Inc. v. Fleishman (1961) 190 Cal.App.2d 554 [ 12 Cal.Rptr. 235 ] (Whittemore), when there is an unconditional right to receive repayment, the joint venture exception does not apply. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Whittemore Homes, Inc. v. Fleishman
green
2 sentences2009Junkin argues that under cases such as Martin v. Ajax Construction Co., supra, 124 Cal.App.2d 425 (Martin) and Whittemore Homes, Inc. v. Fleishman (1961) 190 Cal.App.2d 554 [ 12 Cal.Rptr. 235 ] (Whittemore), when there is an unconditional right to receive repayment, the joint venture exception does not apply. 2009Junkin argues that under cases such as Martin v. Ajax Construction Co., supra, 124 Cal.App.2d 425 (Martin) and Whittemore Homes, Inc. v. Fleishman (1961) 190 Cal.App.2d 554 [ 12 Cal.Rptr. 235 ] (Whittemore), when there is an unconditional right to receive repayment, the joint venture exception does not apply. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Kennedy v. Isenberg
green
2 sentences1945From a judgment in favor of defendants after trial before the court without a jury, in an action for an accounting and dissolution of an alleged joint venture, plaintiff appeals. *879 The evidence being viewed in the light most favorable to the defendants (respondents), and pursuant to the rules set forth in Estate of Isenberg, 63 Cal.App.2d 214 , 216 et seq. [ 146 P.2d 424 ], the essential facts are: In July, 1934,.plaintiff and defendant.David Davis, hereinafter referred to as defendant, formed a joint venture to test and develop a tandem arrangement of an airplane foil or wing which could b 1945From a judgment in favor of defendants after trial before the court without a jury, in an action for an accounting and dissolution of an alleged joint venture, plaintiff appeals. *879 The evidence being viewed in the light most favorable to the defendants (respondents), and pursuant to the rules set forth in Estate of Isenberg, 63 Cal.App.2d 214 , 216 et seq. [ 146 P.2d 424 ], the essential facts are: In July, 1934,.plaintiff and defendant.David Davis, hereinafter referred to as defendant, formed a joint venture to test and develop a tandem arrangement of an airplane foil or wing which could b | 1 | 1945–1945 |
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.