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 3 courts 1901–1996 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 |
|---|---|---|
Balkema v. Deichesgreen2 sentences1950(Balkema v. Deiches, 90 Cal.App.2d 427, 430 [ 202 P.2d 1068 ].) Husband contends that aside from the doctrine that inference is overcome by written evidence, the wife’s recital in her income tax returns is conclusive proof that her earnings *57 were community property, citing Estate of Watkins, 16 Cal.2d 793, 797 [ 108 P.2d 417 , 109 P.2d 1 ], The cited case is not authority for husband’s claim. 1950(Balkema v. Deiches, 90 Cal.App.2d 427, 430 [ 202 P.2d 1068 ].) Husband contends that aside from the doctrine that inference is overcome by written evidence, the wife’s recital in her income tax returns is conclusive proof that her earnings *57 were community property, citing Estate of Watkins, 16 Cal.2d 793, 797 [ 108 P.2d 417 , 109 P.2d 1 ], The cited case is not authority for husband’s claim. | 1 | 1 |
Estate of Watkinsgreen2 sentences1950(Balkema v. Deiches, 90 Cal.App.2d 427, 430 [ 202 P.2d 1068 ].) Husband contends that aside from the doctrine that inference is overcome by written evidence, the wife’s recital in her income tax returns is conclusive proof that her earnings *57 were community property, citing Estate of Watkins, 16 Cal.2d 793, 797 [ 108 P.2d 417 , 109 P.2d 1 ], The cited case is not authority for husband’s claim. 1950(Balkema v. Deiches, 90 Cal.App.2d 427, 430 [ 202 P.2d 1068 ].) Husband contends that aside from the doctrine that inference is overcome by written evidence, the wife’s recital in her income tax returns is conclusive proof that her earnings *57 were community property, citing Estate of Watkins, 16 Cal.2d 793, 797 [ 108 P.2d 417 , 109 P.2d 1 ], The cited case is not authority for husband’s claim. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
City Street Improvement Co. v. Pearson
green
2 sentences1996Co. v. Pearson, supra, 181 Cal. 640, 649 .) We hold that, when state funds are expended pursuant to a settlement agreement in exchange for the relinquishment of such a claim, no `public purpose' is achieved. 1983Co. v. Pearson, supra, 181 Cal. 640, 649 .) We hold that, when state funds are expended pursuant to a settlement agreement in exchange for the relinquishment of such a claim, no “public purpose” is achieved. | 2 | 1983–1996 |
Nichols v. Mitchell
green
2 sentences1950(Nichols v. Mitchell, 32 Cal.2d 598 [ 197 P.2d 550 ].) Since the evidence herein upon which the court based its finding of the husband’s relinquishment of claim of ownership of a share in the wife’s earnings is reasonable and credible the reviewing court cannot say that, the trier of fact abused his discretion in malting his determination. 1950(Nichols v. Mitchell, 32 Cal.2d 598 [ 197 P.2d 550 ].) Since the evidence herein upon which the court based its finding of the husband’s relinquishment of claim of ownership of a share in the wife’s earnings is reasonable and credible the reviewing court cannot say that, the trier of fact abused his discretion in malting his determination. | 1 | 1950–1950 |
Morris v. Reclamation District No. 108
green
1 sentence1950(Balkema v. Deiches, 90 Cal.App.2d 427, 430 [ 202 P.2d 1068 ].) Husband contends that aside from the doctrine that inference is overcome by written evidence, the wife’s recital in her income tax returns is conclusive proof that her earnings *57 were community property, citing Estate of Watkins, 16 Cal.2d 793, 797 [ 108 P.2d 417 , 109 P.2d 1 ], The cited case is not authority for husband’s claim. | 1 | 1950–1950 |
In re Estate of Blythe
green
2 sentences1913As is said in the case of In re Blythe, 108 Cal. 124, 127 , [ 41 Pac. 33 ], “in principle it matters not whether the relinquishment of the claim be voluntary, as by purchase, abandonment or compromise, or involuntary, as by final decree—in both cases the interest of the appellant in the controversy has come definitively to an end, and the decision on the appeal cannot affect the result as to the thing in issue before the court. ’ ’ And, as is said in California v. San Pablo & Tulare R. 1913As is said in the case of In re Blythe, 108 Cal. 124, 127 , [ 41 Pac. 33 ], “in principle it matters not whether the relinquishment of the claim be voluntary, as by purchase, abandonment or compromise, or involuntary, as by final decree—in both cases the interest of the appellant in the controversy has come definitively to an end, and the decision on the appeal cannot affect the result as to the thing in issue before the court. ’ ’ And, as is said in California v. San Pablo & Tulare R. | 1 | 1913–1913 |
Eproson v. Wheat
neutral
1 sentence1901The case also comes within the reason of the rule “that he who accepts a benefit under a . . . . will must adopt the whole contents of the instrument, conforming to all its provisions and renouncing every right inconsistent with it.” (1 Jarman on Wills, 385; Story's Equity Jurisprudence, secs. 1075, 1076; Morrison v. Bowman, 29 Cal. 346 ; Estate of Stewart, 74 Cal. 98 ; Estate of Smith, 108 Cal. 115 ; Etcheborne v. Auzerais, 45 Cal. 121 ; Eproson v. Wheat, 53 Cal. 715 .) As to the time the election is to be exercised the will is equally clear. | 1 | 1901–1901 |
De Etcheborne v. Auzerais
neutral
1 sentence1901The case also comes within the reason of the rule “that he who accepts a benefit under a . . . . will must adopt the whole contents of the instrument, conforming to all its provisions and renouncing every right inconsistent with it.” (1 Jarman on Wills, 385; Story's Equity Jurisprudence, secs. 1075, 1076; Morrison v. Bowman, 29 Cal. 346 ; Estate of Stewart, 74 Cal. 98 ; Estate of Smith, 108 Cal. 115 ; Etcheborne v. Auzerais, 45 Cal. 121 ; Eproson v. Wheat, 53 Cal. 715 .) As to the time the election is to be exercised the will is equally clear. | 1 | 1901–1901 |
In re Estate of Stewart
green
1 sentence1901The case also comes within the reason of the rule “that he who accepts a benefit under a . . . . will must adopt the whole contents of the instrument, conforming to all its provisions and renouncing every right inconsistent with it.” (1 Jarman on Wills, 385; Story's Equity Jurisprudence, secs. 1075, 1076; Morrison v. Bowman, 29 Cal. 346 ; Estate of Stewart, 74 Cal. 98 ; Estate of Smith, 108 Cal. 115 ; Etcheborne v. Auzerais, 45 Cal. 121 ; Eproson v. Wheat, 53 Cal. 715 .) As to the time the election is to be exercised the will is equally clear. | 1 | 1901–1901 |
In re Estate of Smith
green
1 sentence1901The case also comes within the reason of the rule “that he who accepts a benefit under a . . . . will must adopt the whole contents of the instrument, conforming to all its provisions and renouncing every right inconsistent with it.” (1 Jarman on Wills, 385; Story's Equity Jurisprudence, secs. 1075, 1076; Morrison v. Bowman, 29 Cal. 346 ; Estate of Stewart, 74 Cal. 98 ; Estate of Smith, 108 Cal. 115 ; Etcheborne v. Auzerais, 45 Cal. 121 ; Eproson v. Wheat, 53 Cal. 715 .) As to the time the election is to be exercised the will is equally clear. | 1 | 1901–1901 |
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.