property rights analysis in California

5 California opinions name it 2 courts 1955–1995 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.

Followed or applied (7)

Case	Followed	Cited
Harris v. National Union of Marine Cooks & Stewardsgreen calctapp · 1950 · cited in 3 California opinions naming this issue, 1955–1958 2 sentences 1958In Weber v. Marine Cooks’ & Stewards’ Assn., 93 Cal.App.2d 327 [ 208 P.2d 1009 ], it is stated at page 338 that ‘where an organization has violated its own laws and arbitrarily violated a member’s property rights the rule of exhaustion of remedies by appeal to a higher body within the organization need not be adhered to before direct resort to a judicial tribunal.’ (See Harris v. National Union etc. Cooks & Stewards, 98 Cal.App.2d 733 at 736 [ 221 P.2d 136 ].) If such an exception is construed as broadly as the quoted language would permit, it would make it unnecessary for any party with a jus 1958In Weber v. Marine Cooks’ & Stewards’ Assn., 93 Cal.App.2d 327 [ 208 P.2d 1009 ], it is stated at page 338 that ‘where an organization has violated its own laws and arbitrarily violated a member’s property rights the rule of exhaustion of remedies by appeal to a higher body within the organization need not be adhered to before direct resort to a judicial tribunal.’ (See Harris v. National Union etc. Cooks & Stewards, 98 Cal.App.2d 733 at 736 [ 221 P.2d 136 ].) If such an exception is construed as broadly as the quoted language would permit, it would make it unnecessary for any party with a jus	3	3
Stanton v. City of West Sacramentogreen calctapp · 1991 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1995–1995 2 sentences 1995Rather, they are created and their dimensions are defined by existing rules or understandings that stem from an independent source such as state law— rules or understandings that secure certain benefits and that support claims of entitlement to those benefits.’ ” (Id. at p. 207, quoting Board of Regents v. Roth (1972) 408 U.S. 564, 577 [ 33 L.Ed.2d 548, 560-561 , 92 S.Ct. 2701 ].) “The hallmark of property . . . is an individual entitlement grounded in state law, which cannot be removed except ‘for cause.’ ” (Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co. (1982) 455 U.S. 422, 430 [ 71 L.Ed.2d 265, 274 , 102 S.C 1995Rather, they are created and their dimensions are defined by existing rules or understandings that stem from an independent source such as state law— rules or understandings that secure certain benefits and that support claims of entitlement to those benefits.’ ” (Id. at p. 207, quoting Board of Regents v. Roth (1972) 408 U.S. 564, 577 [ 33 L.Ed.2d 548, 560-561 , 92 S.Ct. 2701 ].) “The hallmark of property . . . is an individual entitlement grounded in state law, which cannot be removed except ‘for cause.’ ” (Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co. (1982) 455 U.S. 422, 430 [ 71 L.Ed.2d 265, 274 , 102 S.C	1	1
Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Rothgreen scotus · 1972 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1995–1995 2 sentences 1995Rather, they are created and their dimensions are defined by existing rules or understandings that stem from an independent source such as state law— rules or understandings that secure certain benefits and that support claims of entitlement to those benefits.’ ” (Id. at p. 207, quoting Board of Regents v. Roth (1972) 408 U.S. 564, 577 [ 33 L.Ed.2d 548, 560-561 , 92 S.Ct. 2701 ].) “The hallmark of property . . . is an individual entitlement grounded in state law, which cannot be removed except ‘for cause.’ ” (Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co. (1982) 455 U.S. 422, 430 [ 71 L.Ed.2d 265, 274 , 102 S.C 1995Rather, they are created and their dimensions are defined by existing rules or understandings that stem from an independent source such as state law— rules or understandings that secure certain benefits and that support claims of entitlement to those benefits.’ ” (Id. at p. 207, quoting Board of Regents v. Roth (1972) 408 U.S. 564, 577 [ 33 L.Ed.2d 548, 560-561 , 92 S.Ct. 2701 ].) “The hallmark of property . . . is an individual entitlement grounded in state law, which cannot be removed except ‘for cause.’ ” (Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co. (1982) 455 U.S. 422, 430 [ 71 L.Ed.2d 265, 274 , 102 S.C	1	1
Ng v. State Personnel Boardgreen calctapp · 1977 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1995–1995 2 sentences 1995Rather, they are created and their dimensions are defined by existing rules or understandings that stem from an independent source such as state law— rules or understandings that secure certain benefits and that support claims of entitlement to those benefits.’ ” (Id. at p. 207, quoting Board of Regents v. Roth (1972) 408 U.S. 564, 577 [ 33 L.Ed.2d 548, 560-561 , 92 S.Ct. 2701 ].) “The hallmark of property . . . is an individual entitlement grounded in state law, which cannot be removed except ‘for cause.’ ” (Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co. (1982) 455 U.S. 422, 430 [ 71 L.Ed.2d 265, 274 , 102 S.C 1995Rather, they are created and their dimensions are defined by existing rules or understandings that stem from an independent source such as state law— rules or understandings that secure certain benefits and that support claims of entitlement to those benefits.’ ” (Id. at p. 207, quoting Board of Regents v. Roth (1972) 408 U.S. 564, 577 [ 33 L.Ed.2d 548, 560-561 , 92 S.Ct. 2701 ].) “The hallmark of property . . . is an individual entitlement grounded in state law, which cannot be removed except ‘for cause.’ ” (Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co. (1982) 455 U.S. 422, 430 [ 71 L.Ed.2d 265, 274 , 102 S.C	1	1
Perry v. Sindermanngreen scotus · 1972 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1995–1995 2 sentences 1995Rather, they are created and their dimensions are defined by existing rules or understandings that stem from an independent source such as state law— rules or understandings that secure certain benefits and that support claims of entitlement to those benefits.’ ” (Id. at p. 207, quoting Board of Regents v. Roth (1972) 408 U.S. 564, 577 [ 33 L.Ed.2d 548, 560-561 , 92 S.Ct. 2701 ].) “The hallmark of property . . . is an individual entitlement grounded in state law, which cannot be removed except ‘for cause.’ ” (Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co. (1982) 455 U.S. 422, 430 [ 71 L.Ed.2d 265, 274 , 102 S.C 1995Rather, they are created and their dimensions are defined by existing rules or understandings that stem from an independent source such as state law— rules or understandings that secure certain benefits and that support claims of entitlement to those benefits.’ ” (Id. at p. 207, quoting Board of Regents v. Roth (1972) 408 U.S. 564, 577 [ 33 L.Ed.2d 548, 560-561 , 92 S.Ct. 2701 ].) “The hallmark of property . . . is an individual entitlement grounded in state law, which cannot be removed except ‘for cause.’ ” (Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co. (1982) 455 U.S. 422, 430 [ 71 L.Ed.2d 265, 274 , 102 S.C	1	1
Civil Service Assn. v. City & County of San Franciscogreen cal · 1978 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1995–1995 2 sentences 1995Rather, they are created and their dimensions are defined by existing rules or understandings that stem from an independent source such as state law— rules or understandings that secure certain benefits and that support claims of entitlement to those benefits.’ ” (Id. at p. 207, quoting Board of Regents v. Roth (1972) 408 U.S. 564, 577 [ 33 L.Ed.2d 548, 560-561 , 92 S.Ct. 2701 ].) “The hallmark of property . . . is an individual entitlement grounded in state law, which cannot be removed except ‘for cause.’ ” (Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co. (1982) 455 U.S. 422, 430 [ 71 L.Ed.2d 265, 274 , 102 S.C 1995Rather, they are created and their dimensions are defined by existing rules or understandings that stem from an independent source such as state law— rules or understandings that secure certain benefits and that support claims of entitlement to those benefits.’ ” (Id. at p. 207, quoting Board of Regents v. Roth (1972) 408 U.S. 564, 577 [ 33 L.Ed.2d 548, 560-561 , 92 S.Ct. 2701 ].) “The hallmark of property . . . is an individual entitlement grounded in state law, which cannot be removed except ‘for cause.’ ” (Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co. (1982) 455 U.S. 422, 430 [ 71 L.Ed.2d 265, 274 , 102 S.C	1	1
Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co.green scotus · 1982 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1995–1995 2 sentences 1995Rather, they are created and their dimensions are defined by existing rules or understandings that stem from an independent source such as state law— rules or understandings that secure certain benefits and that support claims of entitlement to those benefits.’ ” (Id. at p. 207, quoting Board of Regents v. Roth (1972) 408 U.S. 564, 577 [ 33 L.Ed.2d 548, 560-561 , 92 S.Ct. 2701 ].) “The hallmark of property . . . is an individual entitlement grounded in state law, which cannot be removed except ‘for cause.’ ” (Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co. (1982) 455 U.S. 422, 430 [ 71 L.Ed.2d 265, 274 , 102 S.C 1995Rather, they are created and their dimensions are defined by existing rules or understandings that stem from an independent source such as state law— rules or understandings that secure certain benefits and that support claims of entitlement to those benefits.’ ” (Id. at p. 207, quoting Board of Regents v. Roth (1972) 408 U.S. 564, 577 [ 33 L.Ed.2d 548, 560-561 , 92 S.Ct. 2701 ].) “The hallmark of property . . . is an individual entitlement grounded in state law, which cannot be removed except ‘for cause.’ ” (Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co. (1982) 455 U.S. 422, 430 [ 71 L.Ed.2d 265, 274 , 102 S.C	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (3)

Case	Cited	Years
Weber v. Marine Cooks' & Stewards' Ass'n green calctapp · 1949 2 sentences 1958In Weber v. Marine Cooks’ & Stewards’ Assn., 93 Cal.App.2d 327 [ 208 P.2d 1009 ], it is stated at page 338 that ‘where an organization has violated its own laws and arbitrarily violated a member’s property rights the rule of exhaustion of remedies by appeal to a higher body within the organization need not be adhered to before direct resort to a judicial tribunal.’ (See Harris v. National Union etc. Cooks & Stewards, 98 Cal.App.2d 733 at 736 [ 221 P.2d 136 ].) If such an exception is construed as broadly as the quoted language would permit, it would make it unnecessary for any party with a jus 1958In Weber v. Marine Cooks’ & Stewards’ Assn., 93 Cal.App.2d 327 [ 208 P.2d 1009 ], it is stated at page 338 that ‘where an organization has violated its own laws and arbitrarily violated a member’s property rights the rule of exhaustion of remedies by appeal to a higher body within the organization need not be adhered to before direct resort to a judicial tribunal.’ (See Harris v. National Union etc. Cooks & Stewards, 98 Cal.App.2d 733 at 736 [ 221 P.2d 136 ].) If such an exception is construed as broadly as the quoted language would permit, it would make it unnecessary for any party with a jus	4	1955–1958
Skelly v. State Personnel Board green cal · 1975 2 sentences 1995Rather, they are created and their dimensions are defined by existing rules or understandings that stem from an independent source such as state law— rules or understandings that secure certain benefits and that support claims of entitlement to those benefits.’ ” (Id. at p. 207, quoting Board of Regents v. Roth (1972) 408 U.S. 564, 577 [ 33 L.Ed.2d 548, 560-561 , 92 S.Ct. 2701 ].) “The hallmark of property . . . is an individual entitlement grounded in state law, which cannot be removed except ‘for cause.’ ” (Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co. (1982) 455 U.S. 422, 430 [ 71 L.Ed.2d 265, 274 , 102 S.C 1995Rather, they are created and their dimensions are defined by existing rules or understandings that stem from an independent source such as state law— rules or understandings that secure certain benefits and that support claims of entitlement to those benefits.’ ” (Id. at p. 207, quoting Board of Regents v. Roth (1972) 408 U.S. 564, 577 [ 33 L.Ed.2d 548, 560-561 , 92 S.Ct. 2701 ].) “The hallmark of property . . . is an individual entitlement grounded in state law, which cannot be removed except ‘for cause.’ ” (Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co. (1982) 455 U.S. 422, 430 [ 71 L.Ed.2d 265, 274 , 102 S.C	1	1995–1995
Schultz v. Regents of University of California green calctapp · 1984 2 sentences 1995Rather, they are created and their dimensions are defined by existing rules or understandings that stem from an independent source such as state law— rules or understandings that secure certain benefits and that support claims of entitlement to those benefits.’ ” (Id. at p. 207, quoting Board of Regents v. Roth (1972) 408 U.S. 564, 577 [ 33 L.Ed.2d 548, 560-561 , 92 S.Ct. 2701 ].) “The hallmark of property . . . is an individual entitlement grounded in state law, which cannot be removed except ‘for cause.’ ” (Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co. (1982) 455 U.S. 422, 430 [ 71 L.Ed.2d 265, 274 , 102 S.C 1995Rather, they are created and their dimensions are defined by existing rules or understandings that stem from an independent source such as state law— rules or understandings that secure certain benefits and that support claims of entitlement to those benefits.’ ” (Id. at p. 207, quoting Board of Regents v. Roth (1972) 408 U.S. 564, 577 [ 33 L.Ed.2d 548, 560-561 , 92 S.Ct. 2701 ].) “The hallmark of property . . . is an individual entitlement grounded in state law, which cannot be removed except ‘for cause.’ ” (Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co. (1982) 455 U.S. 422, 430 [ 71 L.Ed.2d 265, 274 , 102 S.C	1	1995–1995

Where else courts name it

MN 5 (2016–2026) CA 5 (1955–1995) NC 4 (1969–2020) MI 4 (2015–2017)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check