5 California opinions name it 1 courts 1989–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
Smith, Valentino & Smith, Inc. v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1992Kline, P. J., and Smith, J„ concurred. 1 Code of Civil Procedure section 410.30, subdivision (a), is a statutory codification of the doctrine of forum non conveniens, and provides as follows: “When a court upon motion of a party or its own motion finds that in the interest of substantial justice an action should be heard in a forum outside this state, the court shall stay or dismiss the action in whole or in part on any conditions that may be just.” “The enforceability of a forum selection clause is properly raised by a motion to stay or dismiss under Code of Civil Procedure section 410.30, as 1992Kline, P. J., and Smith, J„ concurred. 1 Code of Civil Procedure section 410.30, subdivision (a), is a statutory codification of the doctrine of forum non conveniens, and provides as follows: “When a court upon motion of a party or its own motion finds that in the interest of substantial justice an action should be heard in a forum outside this state, the court shall stay or dismiss the action in whole or in part on any conditions that may be just.” “The enforceability of a forum selection clause is properly raised by a motion to stay or dismiss under Code of Civil Procedure section 410.30, as | 1 | 1 |
Furda v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1992Kline, P. J., and Smith, J„ concurred. 1 Code of Civil Procedure section 410.30, subdivision (a), is a statutory codification of the doctrine of forum non conveniens, and provides as follows: “When a court upon motion of a party or its own motion finds that in the interest of substantial justice an action should be heard in a forum outside this state, the court shall stay or dismiss the action in whole or in part on any conditions that may be just.” “The enforceability of a forum selection clause is properly raised by a motion to stay or dismiss under Code of Civil Procedure section 410.30, as 1992Kline, P. J., and Smith, J„ concurred. 1 Code of Civil Procedure section 410.30, subdivision (a), is a statutory codification of the doctrine of forum non conveniens, and provides as follows: “When a court upon motion of a party or its own motion finds that in the interest of substantial justice an action should be heard in a forum outside this state, the court shall stay or dismiss the action in whole or in part on any conditions that may be just.” “The enforceability of a forum selection clause is properly raised by a motion to stay or dismiss under Code of Civil Procedure section 410.30, as | 1 | 1 |
Stangvik v. Shiley Inc.green2 sentences1992Kline, P. J., and Smith, J„ concurred. 1 Code of Civil Procedure section 410.30, subdivision (a), is a statutory codification of the doctrine of forum non conveniens, and provides as follows: “When a court upon motion of a party or its own motion finds that in the interest of substantial justice an action should be heard in a forum outside this state, the court shall stay or dismiss the action in whole or in part on any conditions that may be just.” “The enforceability of a forum selection clause is properly raised by a motion to stay or dismiss under Code of Civil Procedure section 410.30, as 1992Kline, P. J., and Smith, J„ concurred. 1 Code of Civil Procedure section 410.30, subdivision (a), is a statutory codification of the doctrine of forum non conveniens, and provides as follows: “When a court upon motion of a party or its own motion finds that in the interest of substantial justice an action should be heard in a forum outside this state, the court shall stay or dismiss the action in whole or in part on any conditions that may be just.” “The enforceability of a forum selection clause is properly raised by a motion to stay or dismiss under Code of Civil Procedure section 410.30, as | 1 | 1 |
Duke v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1989(People v. Jacobs (1987) 43 Cal.3d 472, 484 [ 233 Cal.Rptr. 323 , 729 P.2d 757 ]; Duke v. Superior Court (1969) 1 Cal.3d 314, 325 [ 82 Cal.Rptr. 348 , 461 P.2d 628 ]; People v. Neer (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 991, 998-999 [ 223 Cal.Rptr. 555 ].) The two exceptions to the requirement for compliance with section 1531 are generally called “exigent circumstances” and “useless gesture.” If the unfolding events at the time of execution of the warrant give the officers a reasonable basis to conclude that evidence will be destroyed or lives will be endangered by delay, strict compliance with the statute is 1989(People v. Jacobs (1987) 43 Cal.3d 472, 484 [ 233 Cal.Rptr. 323 , 729 P.2d 757 ]; Duke v. Superior Court (1969) 1 Cal.3d 314, 325 [ 82 Cal.Rptr. 348 , 461 P.2d 628 ]; People v. Neer (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 991, 998-999 [ 223 Cal.Rptr. 555 ].) The two exceptions to the requirement for compliance with section 1531 are generally called “exigent circumstances” and “useless gesture.” If the unfolding events at the time of execution of the warrant give the officers a reasonable basis to conclude that evidence will be destroyed or lives will be endangered by delay, strict compliance with the statute is | 1 | 1 |
People v. Neergreen2 sentences1989(People v. Jacobs (1987) 43 Cal.3d 472, 484 [ 233 Cal.Rptr. 323 , 729 P.2d 757 ]; Duke v. Superior Court (1969) 1 Cal.3d 314, 325 [ 82 Cal.Rptr. 348 , 461 P.2d 628 ]; People v. Neer (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 991, 998-999 [ 223 Cal.Rptr. 555 ].) The two exceptions to the requirement for compliance with section 1531 are generally called “exigent circumstances” and “useless gesture.” If the unfolding events at the time of execution of the warrant give the officers a reasonable basis to conclude that evidence will be destroyed or lives will be endangered by delay, strict compliance with the statute is 1989(People v. Jacobs (1987) 43 Cal.3d 472, 484 [ 233 Cal.Rptr. 323 , 729 P.2d 757 ]; Duke v. Superior Court (1969) 1 Cal.3d 314, 325 [ 82 Cal.Rptr. 348 , 461 P.2d 628 ]; People v. Neer (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 991, 998-999 [ 223 Cal.Rptr. 555 ].) The two exceptions to the requirement for compliance with section 1531 are generally called “exigent circumstances” and “useless gesture.” If the unfolding events at the time of execution of the warrant give the officers a reasonable basis to conclude that evidence will be destroyed or lives will be endangered by delay, strict compliance with the statute is | 1 | 1 |
People v. Jacobsgreen2 sentences1989(People v. Jacobs (1987) 43 Cal.3d 472, 484 [ 233 Cal.Rptr. 323 , 729 P.2d 757 ]; Duke v. Superior Court (1969) 1 Cal.3d 314, 325 [ 82 Cal.Rptr. 348 , 461 P.2d 628 ]; People v. Neer (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 991, 998-999 [ 223 Cal.Rptr. 555 ].) The two exceptions to the requirement for compliance with section 1531 are generally called “exigent circumstances” and “useless gesture.” If the unfolding events at the time of execution of the warrant give the officers a reasonable basis to conclude that evidence will be destroyed or lives will be endangered by delay, strict compliance with the statute is 1989(People v. Jacobs (1987) 43 Cal.3d 472, 484 [ 233 Cal.Rptr. 323 , 729 P.2d 757 ]; Duke v. Superior Court (1969) 1 Cal.3d 314, 325 [ 82 Cal.Rptr. 348 , 461 P.2d 628 ]; People v. Neer (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 991, 998-999 [ 223 Cal.Rptr. 555 ].) The two exceptions to the requirement for compliance with section 1531 are generally called “exigent circumstances” and “useless gesture.” If the unfolding events at the time of execution of the warrant give the officers a reasonable basis to conclude that evidence will be destroyed or lives will be endangered by delay, strict compliance with the statute is | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Arroyo
green
1 sentence2017When the language is ambiguous, ‘we refer to other indicia of the voters’ intent, particularly the analyses and arguments contained in the official ballot pamphlet.’ ” ’ [Citation.] ‘In other words, our “task is simply to interpret and apply the initiative’s language so as to effectuate the electorate’s intent.” ’ [Citation.]” (People v. Arroyo, supra, 62 Cal.4th at p. 593 .) “It is well settled that a new statute is presumed to operate prospectively absent an express declaration of retrospectivity or a clear indication that the electorate, or the Legislature, intended otherwise. [Citations.]” | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Tapia v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence2017When the language is ambiguous, ‘we refer to other indicia of the voters’ intent, particularly the analyses and arguments contained in the official ballot pamphlet.’ ” ’ [Citation.] ‘In other words, our “task is simply to interpret and apply the initiative’s language so as to effectuate the electorate’s intent.” ’ [Citation.]” (People v. Arroyo, supra, 62 Cal.4th at p. 593 .) “It is well settled that a new statute is presumed to operate prospectively absent an express declaration of retrospectivity or a clear indication that the electorate, or the Legislature, intended otherwise. [Citations.]” | 1 | 2017–2017 |
People v. VIRAY
green
1 sentence2013The trial court ―cannot commit error in the admission of evidence unless it is called upon to rule on an objection by a party.‖ (People v. Viray (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 1186, 1208 .) The statutory codification of this principle in Evidence Code section 353, subdivision (a) ―represents a specific application of the general rule that reviewing courts will not consider alleged deficiencies in a judgment or order unless the trial court was given an opportunity to act upon them in the first instance. [Citations.]‖ (Id. at p. 1209.) Here, had the defense specifically objected at any stage of the proc | 1 | 2013–2013 |
California Grocers Assn. v. Bank of America
green
2 sentences2006(Compare Harris, supra, 138 Cal.App.4th at p. 40 , where the plaintiffs, represented by the same counsel as Appellants here, alleged in the second and third causes of action that “IBD’s chargeback policy was unlawful and unconscionable.”) In California Grocers Assn. v. Bank of America (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 205 [ 27 Cal.Rptr.2d 396 ] (California Grocers), we discussed at length Civil Code section 1670.5, the statutory codification of the doctrine of unconscionability, which provides that a court may refuse to enforce “an unconscionable contract.” We noted that, while that statute does not in it 2006(Compare Harris, supra, 138 Cal.App.4th at p. 40 , where the plaintiffs, represented by the same counsel as Appellants here, alleged in the second and third causes of action that “IBD’s chargeback policy was unlawful and unconscionable.”) In California Grocers Assn. v. Bank of America (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 205 [ 27 Cal.Rptr.2d 396 ] (California Grocers), we discussed at length Civil Code section 1670.5, the statutory codification of the doctrine of unconscionability, which provides that a court may refuse to enforce “an unconscionable contract.” We noted that, while that statute does not in it | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Harris v. Investor's Business Daily, Inc.
green
1 sentence2006(Compare Harris, supra, 138 Cal.App.4th at p. 40 , where the plaintiffs, represented by the same counsel as Appellants here, alleged in the second and third causes of action that “IBD’s chargeback policy was unlawful and unconscionable.”) In California Grocers Assn. v. Bank of America (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 205 [ 27 Cal.Rptr.2d 396 ] (California Grocers), we discussed at length Civil Code section 1670.5, the statutory codification of the doctrine of unconscionability, which provides that a court may refuse to enforce “an unconscionable contract.” We noted that, while that statute does not in it | 1 | 2006–2006 |
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.