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 1972–2014 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Rheem Manufacturing Co. v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2014The lien is subordinate to recorded encumbrances antedating the commencement of the work of improvement [citation], but takes priority over all subsequent encumbrances [citation].” (Connolly Development, Inc. v. Superior Court (1976) 17 Cal.3d 803, 808 ; see also Idaco Lumber Co. v. Northwestern Sav. & Loan Ass’n. (1969) 265 Cal.App.2d 490, 499, fn. 3 (Idaco Lumber) [“[a]s a general rule the deed of trust held by a lender or other party will have priority over mechanics’ liens if the deed of trust held by the lender was recorded prior to the time the work of improvement first commenced”].) Thu | 1 | 1 |
Forsgren Associates, Inc. v. Pacific Golf Community Development LLCgreen1 sentence2014To preserve a mechanic’s lien, the lien claimant must record a claim of lien within certain time periods following the completion or cessation of work. [Citations.] The recordation of the claim of lien provides constructive notice of the lien to subsequent purchasers and encumbrancers. [Citation.] [¶] Although the claim of lien may be recorded after the work is completed, the lien relates back to the date the first labor or material was furnished for the work of improvement. . . .” (Forsgren Associates, Inc. v. Pacific Golf Community Development LLC (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 135, 145-146 (Forsgre | 1 | 1 |
Vallely Investments, L.P. v. BancAmerica Commercial Corp.green1 sentence2014The lien is subordinate to recorded encumbrances antedating the commencement of the work of improvement [citation], but takes priority over all subsequent encumbrances [citation].” (Connolly Development, Inc. v. Superior Court (1976) 17 Cal.3d 803, 808 ; see also Idaco Lumber Co. v. Northwestern Sav. & Loan Ass’n. (1969) 265 Cal.App.2d 490, 499, fn. 3 (Idaco Lumber) [“[a]s a general rule the deed of trust held by a lender or other party will have priority over mechanics’ liens if the deed of trust held by the lender was recorded prior to the time the work of improvement first commenced”].) Thu | 1 | 1 |
Idaco Lumber Co. v. Northwestern Savings & Loan Ass'ngreen2 sentences2014The lien is subordinate to recorded encumbrances antedating the commencement of the work of improvement [citation], but takes priority over all subsequent encumbrances [citation].” (Connolly Development, Inc. v. Superior Court (1976) 17 Cal.3d 803, 808 ; see also Idaco Lumber Co. v. Northwestern Sav. & Loan Ass’n. (1969) 265 Cal.App.2d 490, 499, fn. 3 (Idaco Lumber) [“[a]s a general rule the deed of trust held by a lender or other party will have priority over mechanics’ liens if the deed of trust held by the lender was recorded prior to the time the work of improvement first commenced”].) Thu 2014The lien is subordinate to recorded encumbrances antedating the commencement of the work of improvement [citation], but takes priority over all subsequent encumbrances [citation].” (Connolly Development, Inc. v. Superior Court (1976) 17 Cal.3d 803, 808 ; see also Idaco Lumber Co. v. Northwestern Sav. & Loan Ass’n. (1969) 265 Cal.App.2d 490, 499, fn. 3 (Idaco Lumber) [“[a]s a general rule the deed of trust held by a lender or other party will have priority over mechanics’ liens if the deed of trust held by the lender was recorded prior to the time the work of improvement first commenced”].) Thu | 1 | 1 |
Schrader Iron Works, Inc. v. Leegreen2 sentences2006(Schrader Iron Works, Inc. v. Lee (1972) 26 Cal.App.3d 621, 631-632 [ 103 Cal.Rptr. 106 ]; Simons Brick Co. v. Hetzel (1925) 72 Cal.App. 1, 5 [ 236 P. 357 ]; Halbert’s Lumber, Inc. v. Lucky Stores, Inc. (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1233, 1247 [ 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 298 ]; see Cal. Mechanic’s Liens and Related Construction Remedies (Cont.Ed.Bar 3d ed. 2005) § 2.64, pp. 78-79.) In light of the foregoing principles, the factual issues framed by the pleadings (as reflected in the four-part judicial declaration and the nature of the quiet title judgment sought by PAT) are: (1) whether PAT is the holder of the opt 2006(Schrader Iron Works, Inc. v. Lee (1972) 26 Cal.App.3d 621, 631-632 [ 103 Cal.Rptr. 106 ]; Simons Brick Co. v. Hetzel (1925) 72 Cal.App. 1, 5 [ 236 P. 357 ]; Halbert’s Lumber, Inc. v. Lucky Stores, Inc. (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1233, 1247 [ 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 298 ]; see Cal. Mechanic’s Liens and Related Construction Remedies (Cont.Ed.Bar 3d ed. 2005) § 2.64, pp. 78-79.) In light of the foregoing principles, the factual issues framed by the pleadings (as reflected in the four-part judicial declaration and the nature of the quiet title judgment sought by PAT) are: (1) whether PAT is the holder of the opt | 1 | 1 |
Halbert's Lumber, Inc. v. Lucky Stores, Inc.green2 sentences2006(Schrader Iron Works, Inc. v. Lee (1972) 26 Cal.App.3d 621, 631-632 [ 103 Cal.Rptr. 106 ]; Simons Brick Co. v. Hetzel (1925) 72 Cal.App. 1, 5 [ 236 P. 357 ]; Halbert’s Lumber, Inc. v. Lucky Stores, Inc. (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1233, 1247 [ 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 298 ]; see Cal. Mechanic’s Liens and Related Construction Remedies (Cont.Ed.Bar 3d ed. 2005) § 2.64, pp. 78-79.) In light of the foregoing principles, the factual issues framed by the pleadings (as reflected in the four-part judicial declaration and the nature of the quiet title judgment sought by PAT) are: (1) whether PAT is the holder of the opt 2006(Schrader Iron Works, Inc. v. Lee (1972) 26 Cal.App.3d 621, 631-632 [ 103 Cal.Rptr. 106 ]; Simons Brick Co. v. Hetzel (1925) 72 Cal.App. 1, 5 [ 236 P. 357 ]; Halbert’s Lumber, Inc. v. Lucky Stores, Inc. (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1233, 1247 [ 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 298 ]; see Cal. Mechanic’s Liens and Related Construction Remedies (Cont.Ed.Bar 3d ed. 2005) § 2.64, pp. 78-79.) In light of the foregoing principles, the factual issues framed by the pleadings (as reflected in the four-part judicial declaration and the nature of the quiet title judgment sought by PAT) are: (1) whether PAT is the holder of the opt | 1 | 1 |
Simons Brick Co. v. Hetzelgreen2 sentences2006(Schrader Iron Works, Inc. v. Lee (1972) 26 Cal.App.3d 621, 631-632 [ 103 Cal.Rptr. 106 ]; Simons Brick Co. v. Hetzel (1925) 72 Cal.App. 1, 5 [ 236 P. 357 ]; Halbert’s Lumber, Inc. v. Lucky Stores, Inc. (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1233, 1247 [ 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 298 ]; see Cal. Mechanic’s Liens and Related Construction Remedies (Cont.Ed.Bar 3d ed. 2005) § 2.64, pp. 78-79.) In light of the foregoing principles, the factual issues framed by the pleadings (as reflected in the four-part judicial declaration and the nature of the quiet title judgment sought by PAT) are: (1) whether PAT is the holder of the opt 2006(Schrader Iron Works, Inc. v. Lee (1972) 26 Cal.App.3d 621, 631-632 [ 103 Cal.Rptr. 106 ]; Simons Brick Co. v. Hetzel (1925) 72 Cal.App. 1, 5 [ 236 P. 357 ]; Halbert’s Lumber, Inc. v. Lucky Stores, Inc. (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1233, 1247 [ 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 298 ]; see Cal. Mechanic’s Liens and Related Construction Remedies (Cont.Ed.Bar 3d ed. 2005) § 2.64, pp. 78-79.) In light of the foregoing principles, the factual issues framed by the pleadings (as reflected in the four-part judicial declaration and the nature of the quiet title judgment sought by PAT) are: (1) whether PAT is the holder of the opt | 1 | 1 |
Bradford v. State of Californiagreen2 sentences2000This, plaintiff contends, was the exact injury the ordinance’s recordation requirement was designed to prevent: “The only conceivable purpose of recording that [instability] information . . . was to put future purchasers (and others involved in property purchases, such as lenders and title companies) on notice of the instability.” (See Grenell v. City of Hermosa Beach (1980) 103 Cal.App.3d 864, 870-871 [ 163 Cal.Rptr. 315 ] [city ordinances requiring city to issue report on authorized use, zoning classification, etc., of property being purchased were designed to protect against purchaser’s buy 2000This, plaintiff contends, was the exact injury the ordinance’s recordation requirement was designed to prevent: “The only conceivable purpose of recording that [instability] information . . . was to put future purchasers (and others involved in property purchases, such as lenders and title companies) on notice of the instability.” (See Grenell v. City of Hermosa Beach (1980) 103 Cal.App.3d 864, 870-871 [ 163 Cal.Rptr. 315 ] [city ordinances requiring city to issue report on authorized use, zoning classification, etc., of property being purchased were designed to protect against purchaser’s buy | 1 | 1 |
Grenell v. City of Hermosa Beachgreen2 sentences2000This, plaintiff contends, was the exact injury the ordinance’s recordation requirement was designed to prevent: “The only conceivable purpose of recording that [instability] information . . . was to put future purchasers (and others involved in property purchases, such as lenders and title companies) on notice of the instability.” (See Grenell v. City of Hermosa Beach (1980) 103 Cal.App.3d 864, 870-871 [ 163 Cal.Rptr. 315 ] [city ordinances requiring city to issue report on authorized use, zoning classification, etc., of property being purchased were designed to protect against purchaser’s buy 2000This, plaintiff contends, was the exact injury the ordinance’s recordation requirement was designed to prevent: “The only conceivable purpose of recording that [instability] information . . . was to put future purchasers (and others involved in property purchases, such as lenders and title companies) on notice of the instability.” (See Grenell v. City of Hermosa Beach (1980) 103 Cal.App.3d 864, 870-871 [ 163 Cal.Rptr. 315 ] [city ordinances requiring city to issue report on authorized use, zoning classification, etc., of property being purchased were designed to protect against purchaser’s buy | 1 | 1 |
Albertson v. Raboffgreen2 sentences1972The tort of wrongful disparagement of title has been defined as follows: “ ‘One who, without a privilege to do so, publishes matter which is untrue and disparaging to another’s property in land, chattels or intangible things under such circumstances as would lead a reasonable man to foresee that the conduct of a third person as purchaser or lessee thereof might be determined thereby is liable for pecuniary loss resulting to the other from the impairment of vendibility thus caused.’ ” (Gudger v. Manton, 21 Cal.2d 537, 541 [ 134 P.2d 217 ], quoting Rest., Torts, § 624 [overruled in part on other 1972The tort of wrongful disparagement of title has been defined as follows: “ ‘One who, without a privilege to do so, publishes matter which is untrue and disparaging to another’s property in land, chattels or intangible things under such circumstances as would lead a reasonable man to foresee that the conduct of a third person as purchaser or lessee thereof might be determined thereby is liable for pecuniary loss resulting to the other from the impairment of vendibility thus caused.’ ” (Gudger v. Manton, 21 Cal.2d 537, 541 [ 134 P.2d 217 ], quoting Rest., Torts, § 624 [overruled in part on other | 1 | 1 |
Gudger v. Mantongreen2 sentences1972The tort of wrongful disparagement of title has been defined as follows: “ ‘One who, without a privilege to do so, publishes matter which is untrue and disparaging to another’s property in land, chattels or intangible things under such circumstances as would lead a reasonable man to foresee that the conduct of a third person as purchaser or lessee thereof might be determined thereby is liable for pecuniary loss resulting to the other from the impairment of vendibility thus caused.’ ” (Gudger v. Manton, 21 Cal.2d 537, 541 [ 134 P.2d 217 ], quoting Rest., Torts, § 624 [overruled in part on other 1972The tort of wrongful disparagement of title has been defined as follows: “ ‘One who, without a privilege to do so, publishes matter which is untrue and disparaging to another’s property in land, chattels or intangible things under such circumstances as would lead a reasonable man to foresee that the conduct of a third person as purchaser or lessee thereof might be determined thereby is liable for pecuniary loss resulting to the other from the impairment of vendibility thus caused.’ ” (Gudger v. Manton, 21 Cal.2d 537, 541 [ 134 P.2d 217 ], quoting Rest., Torts, § 624 [overruled in part on other | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Connolly Development, Inc. v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence2014The lien is subordinate to recorded encumbrances antedating the commencement of the work of improvement [citation], but takes priority over all subsequent encumbrances [citation].” (Connolly Development, Inc. v. Superior Court (1976) 17 Cal.3d 803, 808 ; see also Idaco Lumber Co. v. Northwestern Sav. & Loan Ass’n. (1969) 265 Cal.App.2d 490, 499, fn. 3 (Idaco Lumber) [“[a]s a general rule the deed of trust held by a lender or other party will have priority over mechanics’ liens if the deed of trust held by the lender was recorded prior to the time the work of improvement first commenced”].) Thu | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Haggis v. City of Los Angeles
green
1 sentence2000True, the recordation also may provide warning to potential purchasers and lenders . . . but that effect is aptly described as ‘incidental’ [citation] to the ordinance’s enforcement goals. [The ordinance] exists to protect the public against unsafe building and land conditions, not to regulate the marketing of real estate.” (Haggis, supra, 22 Cal.4th at p. 503 .) Again, reading the text of the SAR provisions, it is evident that the dominant, the overriding, and quite possibly the exclusive purpose of review of building plans by the SAR committee is aesthetic and scenic, rather than the preserv | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Nunn v. State of California
green
2 sentences2000True, the recordation also may provide warning to potential purchasers and lenders (assuming what has not been demonstrated, that the recorded notice would be disclosed by a standard title search), but that effect is aptly described as "incidental" ( Nunn v. State of California, supra, 35 Cal.3d at p. 626 , 200 Cal.Rptr. 440 , 677 P.2d 846 ) to the ordinance's enforcement goals. 2000True, the recordation also may provide warning to potential purchasers and lenders (assuming what has not been demonstrated, that the recorded notice would be disclosed by a standard title search), but that effect is aptly described as “incidental” (Nunn v. State of California, supra, 35 Cal.3d at p. 626 ) to the ordinance’s enforcement goals. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.