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 2001–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
Gridley v. Gridleygreen2 sentences2014(In re Richard S., at pp. 863-866.) The California Supreme Court determined that former rule 244 (now rule 2.831) “is directory rather than mandatory to the extent that it imposes requirements beyond those expressed in article VI, section 21, and that no purpose would be served by interpreting it as intended to void any action taken when the requirements of the rule were not precisely fulfilled.” (In re Richard S., at p. 865; see Gridley v. Gridley (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1562, 1579 [ 83 Cal.Rptr.3d 715 ] [any failure to strictly comply with rule 2.831 by oral or implied stipulation to temporar 2014(In re Richard S., at pp. 863-866.) The California Supreme Court determined that former rule 244 (now rule 2.831) “is directory rather than mandatory to the extent that it imposes requirements beyond those expressed in article VI, section 21, and that no purpose would be served by interpreting it as intended to void any action taken when the requirements of the rule were not precisely fulfilled.” (In re Richard S., at p. 865; see Gridley v. Gridley (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1562, 1579 [ 83 Cal.Rptr.3d 715 ] [any failure to strictly comply with rule 2.831 by oral or implied stipulation to temporar | 2 | 2 |
In Re Estate of Faingreen2 sentences2014(In re Richard S., at pp. 863-866.) The California Supreme Court determined that former rule 244 (now rule 2.831) “is directory rather than mandatory to the extent that it imposes requirements beyond those expressed in article VI, section 21, and that no purpose would be served by interpreting it as intended to void any action taken when the requirements of the rule were not precisely fulfilled.” (In re Richard S., at p. 865; see Gridley v. Gridley (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1562, 1579 [ 83 Cal.Rptr.3d 715 ] [any failure to strictly comply with rule 2.831 by oral or implied stipulation to temporar 2014(In re Richard S., at pp. 863-866.) The California Supreme Court determined that former rule 244 (now rule 2.831) “is directory rather than mandatory to the extent that it imposes requirements beyond those expressed in article VI, section 21, and that no purpose would be served by interpreting it as intended to void any action taken when the requirements of the rule were not precisely fulfilled.” (In re Richard S., at p. 865; see Gridley v. Gridley (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1562, 1579 [ 83 Cal.Rptr.3d 715 ] [any failure to strictly comply with rule 2.831 by oral or implied stipulation to temporar | 2 | 2 |
People v. Graygreen2 sentences2014(In re Richard S., at pp. 863-866.) The California Supreme Court determined that former rule 244 (now rule 2.831) “is directory rather than mandatory to the extent that it imposes requirements beyond those expressed in article VI, section 21, and that no purpose would be served by interpreting it as intended to void any action taken when the requirements of the rule were not precisely fulfilled.” (In re Richard S., at p. 865; see Gridley v. Gridley (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1562, 1579 [ 83 Cal.Rptr.3d 715 ] [any failure to strictly comply with rule 2.831 by oral or implied stipulation to temporar 2014(In re Richard S., at pp. 863-866.) The California Supreme Court determined that former rule 244 (now rule 2.831) “is directory rather than mandatory to the extent that it imposes requirements beyond those expressed in article VI, section 21, and that no purpose would be served by interpreting it as intended to void any action taken when the requirements of the rule were not precisely fulfilled.” (In re Richard S., at p. 865; see Gridley v. Gridley (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1562, 1579 [ 83 Cal.Rptr.3d 715 ] [any failure to strictly comply with rule 2.831 by oral or implied stipulation to temporar | 1 | 2 |
Conservatorship of the Person & Estate of Townsendgreen1 sentence2021(Citing Conservatorship of Townsend (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 691, 704 (Townsend).) She explains Leor’s failure to object, and his similar practice of failing to file every document with the superior court clerk, resulted in a waiver. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2014(State of California v. Superior Court (Bodde) (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1234, 1239 [ 13 Cal.Rptr.3d 534 , 90 P.3d 116 ].) The procedural requirements for claim presentation are prerequisites to litigation against a local public entity or employee thereof based not only on tort liability, but on any claim for “money or damages.” (§ 905.) A cause of action that is subject to the statutory claim procedure must allege either that the plaintiff complied with the claims presentation requirement, or that a recognized exception or excuse for noncompliance, exists. 2014(State of California v. Superior Court (Bodde) (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1234, 1239 [ 13 Cal.Rptr.3d 534 , 90 P.3d 116 ].) The procedural requirements for claim presentation are prerequisites to litigation against a local public entity or employee thereof based not only on tort liability, but on any claim for “money or damages.” (§ 905.) A cause of action that is subject to the statutory claim procedure must allege either that the plaintiff complied with the claims presentation requirement, or that a recognized exception or excuse for noncompliance, exists. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re Richard S.
green
2 sentences2014In re Richard S. (1991) 54 Cal.3d 857 [ 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 2 , 819 P.2d 843 ] held that when construing former rule 244 (now rule 2.831) the parties who have stipulated to a referee sitting as a temporary judge waive any claim of error based on the failure to strictly adhere to the procedural requirements of the rule. 2014In re Richard S. (1991) 54 Cal.3d 857 [ 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 2 , 819 P.2d 843 ] held that when construing former rule 244 (now rule 2.831) the parties who have stipulated to a referee sitting as a temporary judge waive any claim of error based on the failure to strictly adhere to the procedural requirements of the rule. | 3 | 2001–2014 |
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.