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 1956–2026 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Uriarte v. United States Pipe & Foundry Co.green1 sentence2026Since 1981, the statute has specifically provided that “[n]o affidavit or declaration of merits shall be required of the moving party.” (§ 473, subd. (b); see Uriarte v. United States Pipe & Foundry Co. (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 780, 789 .) As explained in Uriarte, the addition of this language in 1981 made clear that a movant need not show “ ‘a meritorious case or defense, so that a different result might possibly be reached if the judgment or order was vacated.’ ” (Uriarte, at p. 789.) And in general, “ ‘a hearing on a motion to relieve a defendant from default is not the place or time to ascert | 1 | 1 |
H. A. Pulaski, Inc. v. Abbey Contractor Specialties, Inc.green2 sentences2008A. Pulaski, Inc. v. Abbey Contractor Specialties, Inc. (1969) 268 Cal.App.2d 883, 887 [ 74 Cal.Rptr. 590 ], italics added; see id. at p. 890.) Thus “it was early held that a hearing on a motion to relieve a defendant from default is not the place or time to ascertain whether defendant really has a defense.” (First Small Business Inv. 2008A. Pulaski, Inc. v. Abbey Contractor Specialties, Inc. (1969) 268 Cal.App.2d 883, 887 [ 74 Cal.Rptr. 590 ], italics added; see id. at p. 890.) Thus “it was early held that a hearing on a motion to relieve a defendant from default is not the place or time to ascertain whether defendant really has a defense.” (First Small Business Inv. | 1 | 1 |
Mannino v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1996(See Mannino v. Superior Court (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 776, 778 [ 191 Cal.Rptr. 163 ] [expressing concern that the discovery process, if abused, could, “like a cancerous growth . . . destroy a meritorious case or defense”].) Hence there was no error in the trial court’s denial of Attransco’s motion to disqualify outside counsel. 1996(See Mannino v. Superior Court (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 776, 778 [ 191 Cal.Rptr. 163 ] [expressing concern that the discovery process, if abused, could, “like a cancerous growth . . . destroy a meritorious case or defense”].) Hence there was no error in the trial court’s denial of Attransco’s motion to disqualify outside counsel. | 1 | 1 |
Parsons v. Weisgreen2 sentences1956(Swallow v. Tungsten Products Co., 205 Cal. 207, 220 [ 270 P. 366 ]; Lee v. Colquhoun, 175 Cal. 16, 17 [ 164 P. 894 ] ; Matson v. John Batto & Sons, 173 Cal. 800, 801 [ 161 P. 1144 ]; Gregory v. Ford, 14 Cal. 138 , 141 et seq. [73 Am.Dec. 639] ; Brozey v. Alesen, 116 Cal.App. 641, 642 [ 3 P.2d 68 ]; Hickey v. Algie, 51 Cal.App. 595, 599-600 [ 197 P. 359 ]; see Bell v. Thompson, 147 Cal. 689, 692-693 [ 82 P. 327 ]; Parsons v. Weis, 144 Cal. 410, 417-418 [ 77 P. 1007 ]; Young v. Barker, 83 Cal.App.2d 654, 657 [ 189 P.2d 521 ].) In order to meet the meritorious case requirement the complaint must 1956(Swallow v. Tungsten Products Co., 205 Cal. 207, 220 [ 270 P. 366 ]; Lee v. Colquhoun, 175 Cal. 16, 17 [ 164 P. 894 ] ; Matson v. John Batto & Sons, 173 Cal. 800, 801 [ 161 P. 1144 ]; Gregory v. Ford, 14 Cal. 138 , 141 et seq. [73 Am.Dec. 639] ; Brozey v. Alesen, 116 Cal.App. 641, 642 [ 3 P.2d 68 ]; Hickey v. Algie, 51 Cal.App. 595, 599-600 [ 197 P. 359 ]; see Bell v. Thompson, 147 Cal. 689, 692-693 [ 82 P. 327 ]; Parsons v. Weis, 144 Cal. 410, 417-418 [ 77 P. 1007 ]; Young v. Barker, 83 Cal.App.2d 654, 657 [ 189 P.2d 521 ].) In order to meet the meritorious case requirement the complaint must | 1 | 1 |
Young v. Barkergreen2 sentences1956(Swallow v. Tungsten Products Co., 205 Cal. 207, 220 [ 270 P. 366 ]; Lee v. Colquhoun, 175 Cal. 16, 17 [ 164 P. 894 ] ; Matson v. John Batto & Sons, 173 Cal. 800, 801 [ 161 P. 1144 ]; Gregory v. Ford, 14 Cal. 138 , 141 et seq. [73 Am.Dec. 639] ; Brozey v. Alesen, 116 Cal.App. 641, 642 [ 3 P.2d 68 ]; Hickey v. Algie, 51 Cal.App. 595, 599-600 [ 197 P. 359 ]; see Bell v. Thompson, 147 Cal. 689, 692-693 [ 82 P. 327 ]; Parsons v. Weis, 144 Cal. 410, 417-418 [ 77 P. 1007 ]; Young v. Barker, 83 Cal.App.2d 654, 657 [ 189 P.2d 521 ].) In order to meet the meritorious case requirement the complaint must 1956(Swallow v. Tungsten Products Co., 205 Cal. 207, 220 [ 270 P. 366 ]; Lee v. Colquhoun, 175 Cal. 16, 17 [ 164 P. 894 ] ; Matson v. John Batto & Sons, 173 Cal. 800, 801 [ 161 P. 1144 ]; Gregory v. Ford, 14 Cal. 138 , 141 et seq. [73 Am.Dec. 639] ; Brozey v. Alesen, 116 Cal.App. 641, 642 [ 3 P.2d 68 ]; Hickey v. Algie, 51 Cal.App. 595, 599-600 [ 197 P. 359 ]; see Bell v. Thompson, 147 Cal. 689, 692-693 [ 82 P. 327 ]; Parsons v. Weis, 144 Cal. 410, 417-418 [ 77 P. 1007 ]; Young v. Barker, 83 Cal.App.2d 654, 657 [ 189 P.2d 521 ].) In order to meet the meritorious case requirement the complaint must | 1 | 1 |
Hickey v. Algiegreen2 sentences1956(Swallow v. Tungsten Products Co., 205 Cal. 207, 220 [ 270 P. 366 ]; Lee v. Colquhoun, 175 Cal. 16, 17 [ 164 P. 894 ] ; Matson v. John Batto & Sons, 173 Cal. 800, 801 [ 161 P. 1144 ]; Gregory v. Ford, 14 Cal. 138 , 141 et seq. [73 Am.Dec. 639] ; Brozey v. Alesen, 116 Cal.App. 641, 642 [ 3 P.2d 68 ]; Hickey v. Algie, 51 Cal.App. 595, 599-600 [ 197 P. 359 ]; see Bell v. Thompson, 147 Cal. 689, 692-693 [ 82 P. 327 ]; Parsons v. Weis, 144 Cal. 410, 417-418 [ 77 P. 1007 ]; Young v. Barker, 83 Cal.App.2d 654, 657 [ 189 P.2d 521 ].) In order to meet the meritorious case requirement the complaint must 1956(Swallow v. Tungsten Products Co., 205 Cal. 207, 220 [ 270 P. 366 ]; Lee v. Colquhoun, 175 Cal. 16, 17 [ 164 P. 894 ] ; Matson v. John Batto & Sons, 173 Cal. 800, 801 [ 161 P. 1144 ]; Gregory v. Ford, 14 Cal. 138 , 141 et seq. [73 Am.Dec. 639] ; Brozey v. Alesen, 116 Cal.App. 641, 642 [ 3 P.2d 68 ]; Hickey v. Algie, 51 Cal.App. 595, 599-600 [ 197 P. 359 ]; see Bell v. Thompson, 147 Cal. 689, 692-693 [ 82 P. 327 ]; Parsons v. Weis, 144 Cal. 410, 417-418 [ 77 P. 1007 ]; Young v. Barker, 83 Cal.App.2d 654, 657 [ 189 P.2d 521 ].) In order to meet the meritorious case requirement the complaint must | 1 | 1 |
Brozey v. Alesengreen2 sentences1956(Swallow v. Tungsten Products Co., 205 Cal. 207, 220 [ 270 P. 366 ]; Lee v. Colquhoun, 175 Cal. 16, 17 [ 164 P. 894 ] ; Matson v. John Batto & Sons, 173 Cal. 800, 801 [ 161 P. 1144 ]; Gregory v. Ford, 14 Cal. 138 , 141 et seq. [73 Am.Dec. 639] ; Brozey v. Alesen, 116 Cal.App. 641, 642 [ 3 P.2d 68 ]; Hickey v. Algie, 51 Cal.App. 595, 599-600 [ 197 P. 359 ]; see Bell v. Thompson, 147 Cal. 689, 692-693 [ 82 P. 327 ]; Parsons v. Weis, 144 Cal. 410, 417-418 [ 77 P. 1007 ]; Young v. Barker, 83 Cal.App.2d 654, 657 [ 189 P.2d 521 ].) In order to meet the meritorious case requirement the complaint must 1956(Swallow v. Tungsten Products Co., 205 Cal. 207, 220 [ 270 P. 366 ]; Lee v. Colquhoun, 175 Cal. 16, 17 [ 164 P. 894 ] ; Matson v. John Batto & Sons, 173 Cal. 800, 801 [ 161 P. 1144 ]; Gregory v. Ford, 14 Cal. 138 , 141 et seq. [73 Am.Dec. 639] ; Brozey v. Alesen, 116 Cal.App. 641, 642 [ 3 P.2d 68 ]; Hickey v. Algie, 51 Cal.App. 595, 599-600 [ 197 P. 359 ]; see Bell v. Thompson, 147 Cal. 689, 692-693 [ 82 P. 327 ]; Parsons v. Weis, 144 Cal. 410, 417-418 [ 77 P. 1007 ]; Young v. Barker, 83 Cal.App.2d 654, 657 [ 189 P.2d 521 ].) In order to meet the meritorious case requirement the complaint must | 1 | 1 |
Matson v. John Batto & Sonsgreen1 sentence1956(Swallow v. Tungsten Products Co., 205 Cal. 207, 220 [ 270 P. 366 ]; Lee v. Colquhoun, 175 Cal. 16, 17 [ 164 P. 894 ] ; Matson v. John Batto & Sons, 173 Cal. 800, 801 [ 161 P. 1144 ]; Gregory v. Ford, 14 Cal. 138 , 141 et seq. [73 Am.Dec. 639] ; Brozey v. Alesen, 116 Cal.App. 641, 642 [ 3 P.2d 68 ]; Hickey v. Algie, 51 Cal.App. 595, 599-600 [ 197 P. 359 ]; see Bell v. Thompson, 147 Cal. 689, 692-693 [ 82 P. 327 ]; Parsons v. Weis, 144 Cal. 410, 417-418 [ 77 P. 1007 ]; Young v. Barker, 83 Cal.App.2d 654, 657 [ 189 P.2d 521 ].) In order to meet the meritorious case requirement the complaint must | 1 | 1 |
Swallow v. Tungsten Products Co.green2 sentences1956(Swallow v. Tungsten Products Co., 205 Cal. 207, 220 [ 270 P. 366 ]; Lee v. Colquhoun, 175 Cal. 16, 17 [ 164 P. 894 ] ; Matson v. John Batto & Sons, 173 Cal. 800, 801 [ 161 P. 1144 ]; Gregory v. Ford, 14 Cal. 138 , 141 et seq. [73 Am.Dec. 639] ; Brozey v. Alesen, 116 Cal.App. 641, 642 [ 3 P.2d 68 ]; Hickey v. Algie, 51 Cal.App. 595, 599-600 [ 197 P. 359 ]; see Bell v. Thompson, 147 Cal. 689, 692-693 [ 82 P. 327 ]; Parsons v. Weis, 144 Cal. 410, 417-418 [ 77 P. 1007 ]; Young v. Barker, 83 Cal.App.2d 654, 657 [ 189 P.2d 521 ].) In order to meet the meritorious case requirement the complaint must 1956(Swallow v. Tungsten Products Co., 205 Cal. 207, 220 [ 270 P. 366 ]; Lee v. Colquhoun, 175 Cal. 16, 17 [ 164 P. 894 ] ; Matson v. John Batto & Sons, 173 Cal. 800, 801 [ 161 P. 1144 ]; Gregory v. Ford, 14 Cal. 138 , 141 et seq. [73 Am.Dec. 639] ; Brozey v. Alesen, 116 Cal.App. 641, 642 [ 3 P.2d 68 ]; Hickey v. Algie, 51 Cal.App. 595, 599-600 [ 197 P. 359 ]; see Bell v. Thompson, 147 Cal. 689, 692-693 [ 82 P. 327 ]; Parsons v. Weis, 144 Cal. 410, 417-418 [ 77 P. 1007 ]; Young v. Barker, 83 Cal.App.2d 654, 657 [ 189 P.2d 521 ].) In order to meet the meritorious case requirement the complaint must | 1 | 1 |
Bell v. Thompsongreen2 sentences1956(Swallow v. Tungsten Products Co., 205 Cal. 207, 220 [ 270 P. 366 ]; Lee v. Colquhoun, 175 Cal. 16, 17 [ 164 P. 894 ] ; Matson v. John Batto & Sons, 173 Cal. 800, 801 [ 161 P. 1144 ]; Gregory v. Ford, 14 Cal. 138 , 141 et seq. [73 Am.Dec. 639] ; Brozey v. Alesen, 116 Cal.App. 641, 642 [ 3 P.2d 68 ]; Hickey v. Algie, 51 Cal.App. 595, 599-600 [ 197 P. 359 ]; see Bell v. Thompson, 147 Cal. 689, 692-693 [ 82 P. 327 ]; Parsons v. Weis, 144 Cal. 410, 417-418 [ 77 P. 1007 ]; Young v. Barker, 83 Cal.App.2d 654, 657 [ 189 P.2d 521 ].) In order to meet the meritorious case requirement the complaint must 1956(Swallow v. Tungsten Products Co., 205 Cal. 207, 220 [ 270 P. 366 ]; Lee v. Colquhoun, 175 Cal. 16, 17 [ 164 P. 894 ] ; Matson v. John Batto & Sons, 173 Cal. 800, 801 [ 161 P. 1144 ]; Gregory v. Ford, 14 Cal. 138 , 141 et seq. [73 Am.Dec. 639] ; Brozey v. Alesen, 116 Cal.App. 641, 642 [ 3 P.2d 68 ]; Hickey v. Algie, 51 Cal.App. 595, 599-600 [ 197 P. 359 ]; see Bell v. Thompson, 147 Cal. 689, 692-693 [ 82 P. 327 ]; Parsons v. Weis, 144 Cal. 410, 417-418 [ 77 P. 1007 ]; Young v. Barker, 83 Cal.App.2d 654, 657 [ 189 P.2d 521 ].) In order to meet the meritorious case requirement the complaint must | 1 | 1 |
Lee v. Colquhoungreen2 sentences1956(Swallow v. Tungsten Products Co., 205 Cal. 207, 220 [ 270 P. 366 ]; Lee v. Colquhoun, 175 Cal. 16, 17 [ 164 P. 894 ] ; Matson v. John Batto & Sons, 173 Cal. 800, 801 [ 161 P. 1144 ]; Gregory v. Ford, 14 Cal. 138 , 141 et seq. [73 Am.Dec. 639] ; Brozey v. Alesen, 116 Cal.App. 641, 642 [ 3 P.2d 68 ]; Hickey v. Algie, 51 Cal.App. 595, 599-600 [ 197 P. 359 ]; see Bell v. Thompson, 147 Cal. 689, 692-693 [ 82 P. 327 ]; Parsons v. Weis, 144 Cal. 410, 417-418 [ 77 P. 1007 ]; Young v. Barker, 83 Cal.App.2d 654, 657 [ 189 P.2d 521 ].) In order to meet the meritorious case requirement the complaint must 1956(Swallow v. Tungsten Products Co., 205 Cal. 207, 220 [ 270 P. 366 ]; Lee v. Colquhoun, 175 Cal. 16, 17 [ 164 P. 894 ] ; Matson v. John Batto & Sons, 173 Cal. 800, 801 [ 161 P. 1144 ]; Gregory v. Ford, 14 Cal. 138 , 141 et seq. [73 Am.Dec. 639] ; Brozey v. Alesen, 116 Cal.App. 641, 642 [ 3 P.2d 68 ]; Hickey v. Algie, 51 Cal.App. 595, 599-600 [ 197 P. 359 ]; see Bell v. Thompson, 147 Cal. 689, 692-693 [ 82 P. 327 ]; Parsons v. Weis, 144 Cal. 410, 417-418 [ 77 P. 1007 ]; Young v. Barker, 83 Cal.App.2d 654, 657 [ 189 P.2d 521 ].) In order to meet the meritorious case requirement the complaint must | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
First Small Business Inv. Co. v. Sistim, Inc.
green
1 sentence2026Co. v. Sistim, Inc. (1970) 12 Cal.App.3d 645, 650 .) Plaintiffs rely on case law regarding requests to set aside defaults on equitable grounds—a form of relief available after expiration of the six-month deadline for statutory relief. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Rappleyea v. Campbell
green
2 sentences2025Collect Access contends that Ahmed’s equitable claims all fail because he could not make a prima facie showing that he had a meritorious case or defense within the meaning of Rappleyea, supra, 8 Cal.4th 975 , the case on which the trial court relied. 2025Collect Access contends that Ahmed’s equitable claims all fail because he could not make a prima facie showing that he had a meritorious case or defense within the meaning of Rappleyea, supra, 8 Cal.4th 975 , the case on which the trial court relied. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Smith v. Jones
green
1 sentence2025Specifically, Collect Access asserts that Ahmed has conceded that he did not pay the debt underlying the 2006 lawsuit and has not identified a 9 defense or meritorious claim that he would have asserted in that lawsuit had he had the opportunity to defend himself.3 Quoting Smith v. Jones (1917) 174 Cal. 513, 516 , Ahmed argues that due process affords him an “absolute right” to set aside a default judgment obtained without service of process. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Gregory v. Ford
green
1 sentence1956(Swallow v. Tungsten Products Co., 205 Cal. 207, 220 [ 270 P. 366 ]; Lee v. Colquhoun, 175 Cal. 16, 17 [ 164 P. 894 ] ; Matson v. John Batto & Sons, 173 Cal. 800, 801 [ 161 P. 1144 ]; Gregory v. Ford, 14 Cal. 138 , 141 et seq. [73 Am.Dec. 639] ; Brozey v. Alesen, 116 Cal.App. 641, 642 [ 3 P.2d 68 ]; Hickey v. Algie, 51 Cal.App. 595, 599-600 [ 197 P. 359 ]; see Bell v. Thompson, 147 Cal. 689, 692-693 [ 82 P. 327 ]; Parsons v. Weis, 144 Cal. 410, 417-418 [ 77 P. 1007 ]; Young v. Barker, 83 Cal.App.2d 654, 657 [ 189 P.2d 521 ].) In order to meet the meritorious case requirement the complaint must | 1 | 1956–1956 |
Trice v. Southern Pacific Co.
green
1 sentence1956(Swallow v. Tungsten Products Co., 205 Cal. 207, 220 [ 270 P. 366 ]; Lee v. Colquhoun, 175 Cal. 16, 17 [ 164 P. 894 ] ; Matson v. John Batto & Sons, 173 Cal. 800, 801 [ 161 P. 1144 ]; Gregory v. Ford, 14 Cal. 138 , 141 et seq. [73 Am.Dec. 639] ; Brozey v. Alesen, 116 Cal.App. 641, 642 [ 3 P.2d 68 ]; Hickey v. Algie, 51 Cal.App. 595, 599-600 [ 197 P. 359 ]; see Bell v. Thompson, 147 Cal. 689, 692-693 [ 82 P. 327 ]; Parsons v. Weis, 144 Cal. 410, 417-418 [ 77 P. 1007 ]; Young v. Barker, 83 Cal.App.2d 654, 657 [ 189 P.2d 521 ].) In order to meet the meritorious case requirement the complaint must | 1 | 1956–1956 |
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.