purpose of correcting error in California

5 California opinions name it 2 courts 1925–1968 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 (1)

Case	Followed	Cited
Baker v. Superior Courtgreen calctapp · 1932 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1938–1938 2 sentences 1938Co., supra; Gerig v. Loveland, 130 Cal. 512 [ 62 Pac. 830 ]; Baker v. Superior Court, 120 Cal. App. 1, 3 [ 7 Pac. (2d) 193 ].) In the ease last cited it is said: “For the purposes of this decision we assume that petitioners, as purchasers at the first foreclosure sale, had the right to institute their second foreclosure action for the purpose of correcting the error into which they had fallen by omitting the name of Marjorie MeKinsey, a defendant in the first foreclosure action. 1938Co., supra; Gerig v. Loveland, 130 Cal. 512 [ 62 Pac. 830 ]; Baker v. Superior Court, 120 Cal. App. 1, 3 [ 7 Pac. (2d) 193 ].) In the ease last cited it is said: “For the purposes of this decision we assume that petitioners, as purchasers at the first foreclosure sale, had the right to institute their second foreclosure action for the purpose of correcting the error into which they had fallen by omitting the name of Marjorie MeKinsey, a defendant in the first foreclosure action.	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 (7)

Case	Cited	Years
Norton v. Newerf green calctapp · 1919 2 sentences 1938The decision cited by them, Norton v. Newerf, 45 Cal. App. 10 [ 187 Pac. 57 ], appears to suslain the right of a purchaser at a foreclosure sale to maintain such an action to foreclose the equity of such omitted party whose ownership of the property was acquired subject to the mortgage.” In the Hurt case, supra, it is said: “In such a situation as herein presented the proper remedy is by a new action in foreclosure, although the courts have allowed the original suit to be reinstated upon amended pleadings. 1938The decision cited by them, Norton v. Newerf, 45 Cal. App. 10 [ 187 Pac. 57 ], appears to suslain the right of a purchaser at a foreclosure sale to maintain such an action to foreclose the equity of such omitted party whose ownership of the property was acquired subject to the mortgage.” In the Hurt case, supra, it is said: “In such a situation as herein presented the proper remedy is by a new action in foreclosure, although the courts have allowed the original suit to be reinstated upon amended pleadings.	2	1932–1938
Lamoreux v. San Diego & Arizona Eastern Railway Co. green cal · 1957 2 sentences 1968Co., 837 supra, 48 Cal.2d 617, 623 ) and explaining that its omission from the common counts is for the purpose of correcting an error. 1968*Co., supra, 48 Cal.2d 617, 623 ) and explaining that its omission from the common counts is for the purpose of correcting an error.	1	1968–1968
People v. Reid green cal · 1924 2 sentences 1947Por a historical review and discussion of the function of a writ of error coram nobis, see People v. Reid, 195 Cal. 249 [ 232 P. 457 , 36 A.L.R. 1435 ]. 1947Por a historical review and discussion of the function of a writ of error coram nobis, see People v. Reid, 195 Cal. 249 [ 232 P. 457 , 36 A.L.R. 1435 ].	1	1947–1947
Gerig v. Loveland neutral cal · 1900 2 sentences 1938Co., supra; Gerig v. Loveland, 130 Cal. 512 [ 62 Pac. 830 ]; Baker v. Superior Court, 120 Cal. App. 1, 3 [ 7 Pac. (2d) 193 ].) In the ease last cited it is said: “For the purposes of this decision we assume that petitioners, as purchasers at the first foreclosure sale, had the right to institute their second foreclosure action for the purpose of correcting the error into which they had fallen by omitting the name of Marjorie MeKinsey, a defendant in the first foreclosure action. 1938Co., supra; Gerig v. Loveland, 130 Cal. 512 [ 62 Pac. 830 ]; Baker v. Superior Court, 120 Cal. App. 1, 3 [ 7 Pac. (2d) 193 ].) In the ease last cited it is said: “For the purposes of this decision we assume that petitioners, as purchasers at the first foreclosure sale, had the right to institute their second foreclosure action for the purpose of correcting the error into which they had fallen by omitting the name of Marjorie MeKinsey, a defendant in the first foreclosure action.	1	1938–1938
Georgia Casualty Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission green cal · 1918 2 sentences 1925(Georgia Casualty Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com., 177 Cal. 289 [ 170 Pac. 625 ]; McBride v. Industrial Acc. Com., 182 Cal. 407 [ 187 Pac. 1050 ].) Supplemental awards may not be used for the purpose of correcting error in the original award. 1925(Georgia Casualty Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com., 177 Cal. 289 [ 170 Pac. 625 ]; McBride v. Industrial Acc. Com., 182 Cal. 407 [ 187 Pac. 1050 ].) Supplemental awards may not be used for the purpose of correcting error in the original award.	1	1925–1925
Grand Union Hotel v. Industrial Accident Commission green calctapp · 1924 2 sentences 1925(Grand Union Hotel v. Industrial Acc. Com., 67 Cal. App. 123 [ 226 Pac. 948 ].) The jurisdiction of the Commission to make an award due to the applicant's paralysis was exhausted. 1925(Grand Union Hotel v. Industrial Acc. Com., 67 Cal. App. 123 [ 226 Pac. 948 ].) The jurisdiction of the Commission to make an award due to the applicant's paralysis was exhausted.	1	1925–1925
McBride v. Industrial Acc. Com. green cal · 1920 2 sentences 1925(Georgia Casualty Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com., 177 Cal. 289 [ 170 Pac. 625 ]; McBride v. Industrial Acc. Com., 182 Cal. 407 [ 187 Pac. 1050 ].) Supplemental awards may not be used for the purpose of correcting error in the original award. 1925(Georgia Casualty Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com., 177 Cal. 289 [ 170 Pac. 625 ]; McBride v. Industrial Acc. Com., 182 Cal. 407 [ 187 Pac. 1050 ].) Supplemental awards may not be used for the purpose of correcting error in the original award.	1	1925–1925

Where else courts name it

HI 33 (1942–2026) WY 10 (1977–2023) GA 7 (2013–2025) CA 5 (1925–1968) LA 4 (1913–2010) TX 3 (1962–2005) OK 3 (1917–1938) MI 3 (2003–2019) OH 2 (2009–2014) NY 2 (1881–1933) FL 2 (1936–1937) WV 2 (1912–1927) VA 2 (2010–2010) OR 2 (1905–1959)

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