5 California opinions name it 3 courts 1976–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
County of Fresno v. Lehmangreen2 sentences1997(County of Fresno v. Lehman (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 340, 347 [ 280 Cal.Rptr. 310 ].) To the extent that an administrative record was necessary, the record developed in the Los Angeles action could have been submitted to the trial court. 12 (See Los Angeles Unified School Dist. v. State of California (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 686, 689 [ 245 Cal.Rptr. 140 ].) We also find that, on the facts of this case, San Diego’s failure to submit a test claim to the Commission before seeking judicial relief did not affect the superior court’s jurisdiction. 1997(County of Fresno v. Lehman (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 340, 347 [ 280 Cal.Rptr. 310 ].) To the extent that an administrative record was necessary, the record developed in the Los Angeles action could have been submitted to the trial court. 12 (See Los Angeles Unified School Dist. v. State of California (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 686, 689 [ 245 Cal.Rptr. 140 ].) We also find that, on the facts of this case, San Diego’s failure to submit a test claim to the Commission before seeking judicial relief did not affect the superior court’s jurisdiction. | 1 | 1 |
Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist. v. STATE OF CALIF.green2 sentences1997(County of Fresno v. Lehman (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 340, 347 [ 280 Cal.Rptr. 310 ].) To the extent that an administrative record was necessary, the record developed in the Los Angeles action could have been submitted to the trial court. 12 (See Los Angeles Unified School Dist. v. State of California (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 686, 689 [ 245 Cal.Rptr. 140 ].) We also find that, on the facts of this case, San Diego’s failure to submit a test claim to the Commission before seeking judicial relief did not affect the superior court’s jurisdiction. 1997(County of Fresno v. Lehman (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 340, 347 [ 280 Cal.Rptr. 310 ].) To the extent that an administrative record was necessary, the record developed in the Los Angeles action could have been submitted to the trial court. 12 (See Los Angeles Unified School Dist. v. State of California (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 686, 689 [ 245 Cal.Rptr. 140 ].) We also find that, on the facts of this case, San Diego’s failure to submit a test claim to the Commission before seeking judicial relief did not affect the superior court’s jurisdiction. | 1 | 1 |
Johns v. City of Los Angelesgreen2 sentences1991(Johns v. City of Los Angeles (1978) 78 Cal.App.3d 983, 987-990 [ 144 Cal.Rptr. 629 ].) As succinctly explained by San Diego in its opening brief, the issues surrounding the new trial motion (the finding of a lack of reasonable diligence in producing new evidence and the probative value of that evidence) are moot in light of the judicial notice taken by the trial court and this court of the existence of the newly discovered evidence offered in support of the motion, i.e., resolution No. 269983. 1991(Johns v. City of Los Angeles (1978) 78 Cal.App.3d 983, 987-990 [ 144 Cal.Rptr. 629 ].) As succinctly explained by San Diego in its opening brief, the issues surrounding the new trial motion (the finding of a lack of reasonable diligence in producing new evidence and the probative value of that evidence) are moot in light of the judicial notice taken by the trial court and this court of the existence of the newly discovered evidence offered in support of the motion, i.e., resolution No. 269983. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Hallnergreen2 sentences1976We are here called upon to construe an act of the Legislature; the final decision of an appellate court in the exercise of that function is binding throughout the state, (See People v. Hallner (1954) 43 Cal.2d 715, 720-721 [ 277 P.2d 393 ].) Class Action Respondents urge that this is not a proper class action, either as to petitioners or respondents. 1976We are here called upon to construe an act of the Legislature; the final decision of an appellate court in the exercise of that function is binding throughout the state, (See People v. Hallner (1954) 43 Cal.2d 715, 720-721 [ 277 P.2d 393 ].) Class Action Respondents urge that this is not a proper class action, either as to petitioners or respondents. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re Dapper
green
2 sentences2018It is equally clear that the 'violations' referred to, prosecution for which is preserved, are violations occurring before the adoption of the code and not violations like those involved here which occurred after adoption." ( Dapper , supra , 71 Cal.2d at pp. 188-189, 77 Cal.Rptr. 897 , 454 P.2d 905 , original italics.) LAMC section 11.00, which was last amended in 2017, prior to the repeal of *423 Proposition D, does not include provisions such as the highlighted portions in the San Diego clause, and by its terms it is not limited to repeals made at the time LAMC section 11.00 was enacted. *2 2018It is equally clear that the 'violations' referred to, prosecution for which is preserved, are violations occurring before the adoption of the code and not violations like those involved here which occurred after adoption." ( Dapper , supra , 71 Cal.2d at pp. 188-189, 77 Cal.Rptr. 897 , 454 P.2d 905 , original italics.) LAMC section 11.00, which was last amended in 2017, prior to the repeal of *423 Proposition D, does not include provisions such as the highlighted portions in the San Diego clause, and by its terms it is not limited to repeals made at the time LAMC section 11.00 was enacted. *2 | 1 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Superior Court (Zamudio)
green
2 sentences2018(See People v. Superior Court (Zamudio) (2000) 23 Cal.4th 183 , 199, 96 Cal.Rptr.2d 463 , 999 P.2d 686 [enacting body is presumed to be aware of related laws].) The City Council thereby intended that the repeal of Proposition D not be retroactive, because the LAMC provided that "the repeal of any ordinance of this City shall in [no] manner affect the prosecution for violation of ordinances, which violations were committed prior to the effective date of the ordinance." (LAMC, § 11.00, subd. (d).) In addition to the saving clause, there are other strong indications that the City Council did not 2018(See People v. Superior Court (Zamudio) (2000) 23 Cal.4th 183 , 199, 96 Cal.Rptr.2d 463 , 999 P.2d 686 [enacting body is presumed to be aware of related laws].) The City Council thereby intended that the repeal of Proposition D not be retroactive, because the LAMC provided that "the repeal of any ordinance of this City shall in [no] manner affect the prosecution for violation of ordinances, which violations were committed prior to the effective date of the ordinance." (LAMC, § 11.00, subd. (d).) In addition to the saving clause, there are other strong indications that the City Council did not | 1 | 2018–2018 |
City of San Diego v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence2015The Court of Appeal issued a writ of mandate directing the trial court to grant the summary judgment motion, concluding that Imperial Avenue was not dangerous and that the plaintiffs had presented “no evidence connecting the absence of lighting to the third party conduct.” (City of San Diego, supra, 137 Cal.App.4th at p. 31 .) The Court of Appeal questioned whether the absence of lighting was a “defective physical condition” of the property, noting that the plaintiffs had made no “showing of previous accidents caused by poor lighting.” (Ibid.) The court also explained that “it is not possible | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Kinlaw v. State of California
green
1 sentence1997A contrary conclusion would undermine one of “the express purpose[s]” of the statutory procedure: to “avoid[] multiple proceedings . . . addressing the same claim that a reimbursable state mandate has been created.” (Kinlaw, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 333 .) However, we reject the state’s assertion that the error was jurisdictional. | 1 | 1997–1997 |