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 1932–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
Spear v. California State Automobile Ass'ngreen2 sentences2017The Court disagrees. ‘It is elementary that a statute of limitations does not begin to run until the cause of action accrues. [Citations.] Equally basic is that a cause of action does not accrue “until the party owning it is entitled to begin and prosecute an action thereon” [citation], that is, not until “the last element essential to the cause of action” occurs.’ (Spear v. California State Auto[.] Assn. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1035, 1040 [ 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 381 , 831 P.2d 821 ].) It is clear that the statute of limitations in . . . section 5097, subdivision (a)(3)(A)(i) establishes a number of factual 2017The Court disagrees. ‘It is elementary that a statute of limitations does not begin to run until the cause of action accrues. [Citations.] Equally basic is that a cause of action does not accrue “until the party owning it is entitled to begin and prosecute an action thereon” [citation], that is, not until “the last element essential to the cause of action” occurs.’ (Spear v. California State Auto[.] Assn. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1035, 1040 [ 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 381 , 831 P.2d 821 ].) It is clear that the statute of limitations in . . . section 5097, subdivision (a)(3)(A)(i) establishes a number of factual | 1 | 1 |
JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA v. City and County of San Franciscogreen2 sentences2017“The law is similarly clear that a claim for refund pursuant to . . . section 5097 cannot be made until after the taxes (and any penalties) have been paid. (. . . § 5097, subd. (a)(1); JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. City and County of San Francisco[ (2009)] 174 Cal.App.4th 1201, 1210 [ 94 Cal.Rptr.3d 906 ].) Accordingly, since a refund claim cannot be properly made until after the disputed taxes are paid, the right to file a claim for refund does not accrue, and the statute of limitations in . . . section 5097, subdivision (a)(3)(A)(i) does not start running, until after all of the factual condi 2017“The law is similarly clear that a claim for refund pursuant to . . . section 5097 cannot be made until after the taxes (and any penalties) have been paid. (. . . § 5097, subd. (a)(1); JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. City and County of San Francisco[ (2009)] 174 Cal.App.4th 1201, 1210 [ 94 Cal.Rptr.3d 906 ].) Accordingly, since a refund claim cannot be properly made until after the disputed taxes are paid, the right to file a claim for refund does not accrue, and the statute of limitations in . . . section 5097, subdivision (a)(3)(A)(i) does not start running, until after all of the factual condi | 1 | 1 |
Mudd v. McColgangreen2 sentences1954(Rosefield Packing Co. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal.2d 120, 122 [ 47 P.2d 716 ] ; Southern Service Co., Ltd. v. Los Angeles County, 15 Cal.2d 1, 7, 11-12 [ 97 P.2d 963 ]; Mudd v. McColgan, 30 Cal.2d 463, 467-468 [ 183 P.2d 10 ].) Section 45.11 gives an employing unit the right to file a claim for refund when a contribution has been made. 1954(Rosefield Packing Co. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal.2d 120, 122 [ 47 P.2d 716 ] ; Southern Service Co., Ltd. v. Los Angeles County, 15 Cal.2d 1, 7, 11-12 [ 97 P.2d 963 ]; Mudd v. McColgan, 30 Cal.2d 463, 467-468 [ 183 P.2d 10 ].) Section 45.11 gives an employing unit the right to file a claim for refund when a contribution has been made. | 1 | 1 |
Rosefield Packing Co. v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1954(Rosefield Packing Co. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal.2d 120, 122 [ 47 P.2d 716 ] ; Southern Service Co., Ltd. v. Los Angeles County, 15 Cal.2d 1, 7, 11-12 [ 97 P.2d 963 ]; Mudd v. McColgan, 30 Cal.2d 463, 467-468 [ 183 P.2d 10 ].) Section 45.11 gives an employing unit the right to file a claim for refund when a contribution has been made. 1954(Rosefield Packing Co. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal.2d 120, 122 [ 47 P.2d 716 ] ; Southern Service Co., Ltd. v. Los Angeles County, 15 Cal.2d 1, 7, 11-12 [ 97 P.2d 963 ]; Mudd v. McColgan, 30 Cal.2d 463, 467-468 [ 183 P.2d 10 ].) Section 45.11 gives an employing unit the right to file a claim for refund when a contribution has been made. | 1 | 1 |
Southern Service Co. v. County of Los Angelesgreen2 sentences1954(Rosefield Packing Co. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal.2d 120, 122 [ 47 P.2d 716 ] ; Southern Service Co., Ltd. v. Los Angeles County, 15 Cal.2d 1, 7, 11-12 [ 97 P.2d 963 ]; Mudd v. McColgan, 30 Cal.2d 463, 467-468 [ 183 P.2d 10 ].) Section 45.11 gives an employing unit the right to file a claim for refund when a contribution has been made. 1954(Rosefield Packing Co. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal.2d 120, 122 [ 47 P.2d 716 ] ; Southern Service Co., Ltd. v. Los Angeles County, 15 Cal.2d 1, 7, 11-12 [ 97 P.2d 963 ]; Mudd v. McColgan, 30 Cal.2d 463, 467-468 [ 183 P.2d 10 ].) Section 45.11 gives an employing unit the right to file a claim for refund when a contribution has been made. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
London Guarantee & Accident Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission
green
2 sentences1974(London G. & A. Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com., 92 Cal.App. 298 [ 268 Pac. 670 ].) Sacramento v. Central Cal. Traction Co., 78 Cal.App. 215 [ 248 Pac. 307 ], takes the same view as to a public employment, and substantially supports the conclusion hereinabove expressed. 1974(London G. & A. Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com., 92 Cal.App. 298 [ 268 Pac. 670 ].) Sacramento v. Central Cal. Traction Co., 78 Cal.App. 215 [ 248 Pac. 307 ], takes the same view as to a public employment, and substantially supports the conclusion hereinabove expressed. | 2 | 1932–1974 |
City of Sacramento v. Central California Traction Co.
green
2 sentences1974(London G. & A. Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com., 92 Cal.App. 298 [ 268 Pac. 670 ].) Sacramento v. Central Cal. Traction Co., 78 Cal.App. 215 [ 248 Pac. 307 ], takes the same view as to a public employment, and substantially supports the conclusion hereinabove expressed. 1974(London G. & A. Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com., 92 Cal.App. 298 [ 268 Pac. 670 ].) Sacramento v. Central Cal. Traction Co., 78 Cal.App. 215 [ 248 Pac. 307 ], takes the same view as to a public employment, and substantially supports the conclusion hereinabove expressed. | 2 | 1932–1974 |
Brown v. Campbell
green
2 sentences1938The mere intent to delay or defraud is not sufficient, but there must also be an injury to the creditor which must be affirmatively shown. (12 Cal. Jur., p. 976; Brown v. Campbell, 100 Cal. 635 [ 35 Pac. 433 , 38 Am. 1938The mere intent to delay or defraud is not sufficient, but there must also be an injury to the creditor which must be affirmatively shown. (12 Cal. Jur., p. 976; Brown v. Campbell, 100 Cal. 635 [ 35 Pac. 433 , 38 Am. | 1 | 1938–1938 |
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.