5 California opinions name it 1 courts 2023–2026 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lakin v. Watkins Associated Industriesgreen2 sentences2026(Lakin v. Watkins Associated Industries (1993) 6 Cal.4th 644 , 660–661.) POCF did not raise this theory in the trial court, did not address the Lakin factors on appeal, and identified no evidentiary record showing exclusive control of relevant documents by SDG&E or the City. 2026(Lakin v. Watkins Associated Industries (1993) 6 Cal.4th 644 , 660–661.) POCF did not raise this theory in the trial court, did not address the Lakin factors on appeal, and identified no evidentiary record showing exclusive control of relevant documents by SDG&E or the City. | 2 | 5 |
Smith v. St. Jude Medical CA1/5green2 sentences2023Jude Medical, Inc. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 313, 315, fn. 1 [same]; see People v. Accredited Surety & Casualty Co., Inc. (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 122 , 132 [declining to decide allocation of burden of proof issue where party did not address the Lakin factors in the trial court or on appeal].)6 Had the issue been raised, defendants may have been more incentivized to further develop the record regarding, for example, plaintiffs’ knowledge of the trust and their beneficiary status prior to defendants’ other alleged breaches. 7 (See Cassady v. Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 220 , 23 2023Jude Medical, Inc. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 313, 315, fn. 1 [same]; see People v. Accredited Surety & Casualty Co., Inc. (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 122 , 132 [declining to decide allocation of burden of proof issue where party did not address the Lakin factors in the trial court or on appeal].)6 Had the issue been raised, defendants may have been more incentivized to further develop the record regarding, for example, plaintiffs’ knowledge of the trust and their beneficiary status prior to defendants’ other alleged breaches. 7 (See Cassady v. Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 220 , 23 | 2 | 2 |
Cassady v. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLPgreen2 sentences2023Jude Medical, Inc. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 313, 315, fn. 1 [same]; see People v. Accredited Surety & Casualty Co., Inc. (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 122 , 132 [declining to decide allocation of burden of proof issue where party did not address the Lakin factors in the trial court or on appeal].)6 Had the issue been raised, defendants may have been more incentivized to further develop the record regarding, for example, plaintiffs’ knowledge of the trust and their beneficiary status prior to defendants’ other alleged breaches. 7 (See Cassady v. Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 220 , 23 2023Jude Medical, Inc. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 313, 315, fn. 1 [same]; see People v. Accredited Surety & Casualty Co., Inc. (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 122 , 132 [declining to decide allocation of burden of proof issue where party did not address the Lakin factors in the trial court or on appeal].)6 Had the issue been raised, defendants may have been more incentivized to further develop the record regarding, for example, plaintiffs’ knowledge of the trust and their beneficiary status prior to defendants’ other alleged breaches. 7 (See Cassady v. Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 220 , 23 | 2 | 2 |
People v. Miralriogreen2 sentences2023(People v. Miralrio (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 448, 452, fn. 4 [an appellate court is not required to address undeveloped claims or ones inadequately briefed].) 18 to shift the allocation of the burden of proof].) “Appellate courts are loath to reverse a judgment on grounds that the opposing party did not have an opportunity to argue and the trial court did not have an opportunity to consider.” (JRS Products, Inc. v. Matsushita Electric Corp. of America (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 168, 178 .) Although plaintiffs contend that “settled law” dictates the application of the uncertainty presumption in this 2023(People v. Miralrio (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 448, 452, fn. 4 [an appellate court is not required to address undeveloped claims or ones inadequately briefed].) 18 to shift the allocation of the burden of proof].) “Appellate courts are loath to reverse a judgment on grounds that the opposing party did not have an opportunity to argue and the trial court did not have an opportunity to consider.” (JRS Products, Inc. v. Matsushita Electric Corp. of America (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 168, 178 .) Although plaintiffs contend that “settled law” dictates the application of the uncertainty presumption in this | 2 | 2 |
Thomas v. Luskgreen2 sentences2023Jude Medical, Inc. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 313, 315, fn. 1 [same]; see People v. Accredited Surety & Casualty Co., Inc. (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 122 , 132 [declining to decide allocation of burden of proof issue where party did not address the Lakin factors in the trial court or on appeal].)6 Had the issue been raised, defendants may have been more incentivized to further develop the record regarding, for example, plaintiffs’ knowledge of the trust and their beneficiary status prior to defendants’ other alleged breaches. 7 (See Cassady v. Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 220 , 23 2023Jude Medical, Inc. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 313, 315, fn. 1 [same]; see People v. Accredited Surety & Casualty Co., Inc. (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 122 , 132 [declining to decide allocation of burden of proof issue where party did not address the Lakin factors in the trial court or on appeal].)6 Had the issue been raised, defendants may have been more incentivized to further develop the record regarding, for example, plaintiffs’ knowledge of the trust and their beneficiary status prior to defendants’ other alleged breaches. 7 (See Cassady v. Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 220 , 23 | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
JRS Products, Inc. v. Matsushita Electric Corp. of America
green
2 sentences2023(People v. Miralrio (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 448, 452, fn. 4 [an appellate court is not required to address undeveloped claims or ones inadequately briefed].) 18 to shift the allocation of the burden of proof].) “Appellate courts are loath to reverse a judgment on grounds that the opposing party did not have an opportunity to argue and the trial court did not have an opportunity to consider.” (JRS Products, Inc. v. Matsushita Electric Corp. of America (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 168, 178 .) Although plaintiffs contend that “settled law” dictates the application of the uncertainty presumption in this 2023(People v. Miralrio (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 448, 452, fn. 4 [an appellate court is not required to address undeveloped claims or ones inadequately briefed].) 18 to shift the allocation of the burden of proof].) “Appellate courts are loath to reverse a judgment on grounds that the opposing party did not have an opportunity to argue and the trial court did not have an opportunity to consider.” (JRS Products, Inc. v. Matsushita Electric Corp. of America (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 168, 178 .) Although plaintiffs contend that “settled law” dictates the application of the uncertainty presumption in this | 2 | 2023–2023 |
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.