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 2010–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Castillogreen2 sentences2023(People v. Castillo, supra, 49 Cal.4th at p. 156 [“The doctrine of judicial estoppel is designed to protect the integrity of the legal system as a whole, and does not require a showing of detrimental reliance by a party”].) Indeed, “detrimental reliance or induced [action or] forbearance … simply has no relevance to application of judicial estoppel.” (Ibid.) “ ‘ “The gravamen of judicial estoppel … is the intentional assertion of an inconsistent position that perverts the judicial machinery.” ’ ” (Gottlieb v. Kest, supra, 141 Cal.App.4th at p. 132 .) Thus, it is of no consequence that Newsom b 2015“The doctrine of judicial estoppel is designed to protect the integrity of the legal system as a whole, and does not require a showing of detrimental reliance by a party. [Citations.]” (People v. Castillo, supra, 49 Cal.4th at p. 156 .) In any event, we disagree. | 1 | 3 |
People v. Fordgreen1 sentence2015(See People v. Ford (2015) 61 Cal.4th 282, 289 [defendant’s consent to the court’s continued exercise of jurisdiction beyond the expiration of his probationary term estopped him from challenging it on appeal].) “The doctrine of judicial estoppel is designed to protect the 5 Whether the court’s procedure was unnecessary is an entirely different matter. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Shabazzgreen2 sentences2015We note that in People v. Shabbaz (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 303, 310 (Shabbaz), the court assumed that for purposes of resentencing pursuant to section 1170.18, a defendant granted felony probation is “ ‘serving a sentence.’ ” Specifically, the court stated that “[s]ection 1170.18 identifies two ways a defendant sentenced or placed on probation prior to Proposition 47’s effective date can have his or her sentence for an enumerated felony reduced to a misdemeanor.” (Shabbaz, supra, at p. 310, italics added.) Further, as explained in In re Delong (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 562 , “an order granting proba 2015We note that in People v. Shabbaz (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 303, 310 (Shabbaz), the court assumed that for purposes of resentencing pursuant to section 1170.18, a defendant granted felony probation is “ ‘serving a sentence.’ ” Specifically, the court stated that “[s]ection 1170.18 identifies two ways a defendant sentenced or placed on probation prior to Proposition 47’s effective date can have his or her sentence for an enumerated felony reduced to a misdemeanor.” (Shabbaz, supra, at p. 310, italics added.) Further, as explained in In re Delong (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 562 , “an order granting proba | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Gottlieb v. Kest
green
1 sentence2023(People v. Castillo, supra, 49 Cal.4th at p. 156 [“The doctrine of judicial estoppel is designed to protect the integrity of the legal system as a whole, and does not require a showing of detrimental reliance by a party”].) Indeed, “detrimental reliance or induced [action or] forbearance … simply has no relevance to application of judicial estoppel.” (Ibid.) “ ‘ “The gravamen of judicial estoppel … is the intentional assertion of an inconsistent position that perverts the judicial machinery.” ’ ” (Gottlieb v. Kest, supra, 141 Cal.App.4th at p. 132 .) Thus, it is of no consequence that Newsom b | 1 | 2023–2023 |
AP-Colton LLC v. Ohaeri
green
1 sentence2015But that claim is of no moment because " '[t]he doctrine of judicial estoppel is designed to protect the integrity of the legal system as a whole, and does not require a showing of detrimental reliance by a party.' " (AP-Colton v. Ohaeri, supra, 240 Cal.App.4th at p. 508 .) Because we affirm the court's ruling on the above stated grounds, we need not address Reile's contention that Live Stores did not default by entering into a licensing agreement with a third party. 18 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
In Re DeLong
green
1 sentence2015We note that in People v. Shabbaz (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 303, 310 (Shabbaz), the court assumed that for purposes of resentencing pursuant to section 1170.18, a defendant granted felony probation is “ ‘serving a sentence.’ ” Specifically, the court stated that “[s]ection 1170.18 identifies two ways a defendant sentenced or placed on probation prior to Proposition 47’s effective date can have his or her sentence for an enumerated felony reduced to a misdemeanor.” (Shabbaz, supra, at p. 310, italics added.) Further, as explained in In re Delong (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 562 , “an order granting proba | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Aguilar v. Lerner
green
1 sentence2010The doctrine of judicial estoppel is designed to protect the integrity of the legal system as a whole, and does not require a showing of detrimental reliance by a party. ( Aguilar, supra, 32 Cal.4th 974, 986-987 ; MW Erectors, supra, 36 Cal.4th 412, 422 .) HI. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
MW Erectors, Inc. v. Niederhauser Ornamental & Metal Works Co.
green
2 sentences2010The doctrine of judicial estoppel is designed to protect the integrity of the legal system as a whole, and does not require a showing of detrimental reliance by a party. ( Aguilar, supra, 32 Cal.4th 974, 986-987 ; MW Erectors, supra, 36 Cal.4th 412, 422 .) HI. 2010The doctrine of judicial estoppel is designed to protect the integrity of the legal system as a whole, and does not require a showing of detrimental reliance by a party. ( Aguilar, supra, 32 Cal.4th 974, 986-987 ; MW Erectors, supra, 36 Cal.4th 412, 422 .) HI. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
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.