5 California opinions name it 1 courts 2000–2025 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Planning and Conservation League v. Department of Water Resourcesgreen1 sentence2025When any person files a validation action, the validity of the matter is decided once and for all in that action. (§ 870.)” (Katz, supra, 144 Cal.App.4th at p. 1032 ; see also § 870, subd. (a) [once final, the judgment in a validation proceeding “shall . . . be forever binding and conclusive, as to all matters therein adjudicated or which at that time could have been adjudicated, against the agency and against all other persons”].) “The very purpose of an in rem action is to provide a binding judgment against the world.” (Planning & Conservation, supra, 83 Cal.App.4th at p. 921 .) Thus, All Pe | 1 | 1 |
Silicon Valley Taxpayers' Ass'n v. Santa Clara County Open Space Authoritygreen2 sentences2025If the public agency fails to file such a claim, “any interested person” may bring a claim to determine the validity of the agency’s action. (§ 863; Kaatz v. City of Seaside (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 13 , 29–30 (Kaatz).) A validation claim 5 Further statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure unless otherwise indicated. 10 by an interested person is commonly referred to as a “ ‘reverse validation action.’ ” (Kaatz, at p. 30, fn. 16.) In reviewing the constitutional issues raised in the instant “reverse validation” action, we exercise “independent judgment.” (See Silicon Valley Taxpaye 2025If the public agency fails to file such a claim, “any interested person” may bring a claim to determine the validity of the agency’s action. (§ 863; Kaatz v. City of Seaside (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 13 , 29–30 (Kaatz).) A validation claim 5 Further statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure unless otherwise indicated. 10 by an interested person is commonly referred to as a “ ‘reverse validation action.’ ” (Kaatz, at p. 30, fn. 16.) In reviewing the constitutional issues raised in the instant “reverse validation” action, we exercise “independent judgment.” (See Silicon Valley Taxpaye | 1 | 1 |
Moore v. City of Lemon Grovegreen2 sentences2025If the public agency fails to file such a claim, “any interested person” may bring a claim to determine the validity of the agency’s action. (§ 863; Kaatz v. City of Seaside (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 13 , 29–30 (Kaatz).) A validation claim 5 Further statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure unless otherwise indicated. 10 by an interested person is commonly referred to as a “ ‘reverse validation action.’ ” (Kaatz, at p. 30, fn. 16.) In reviewing the constitutional issues raised in the instant “reverse validation” action, we exercise “independent judgment.” (See Silicon Valley Taxpaye 2025If the public agency fails to file such a claim, “any interested person” may bring a claim to determine the validity of the agency’s action. (§ 863; Kaatz v. City of Seaside (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 13 , 29–30 (Kaatz).) A validation claim 5 Further statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure unless otherwise indicated. 10 by an interested person is commonly referred to as a “ ‘reverse validation action.’ ” (Kaatz, at p. 30, fn. 16.) In reviewing the constitutional issues raised in the instant “reverse validation” action, we exercise “independent judgment.” (See Silicon Valley Taxpaye | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Barratt American, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cucamonga
green
2 sentences2021In support, Central Delta relies on Barratt American, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cucamonga (2005) 37 Cal.4th 685 (Barratt). 2021In support, Central Delta relies on Barratt American, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cucamonga (2005) 37 Cal.4th 685 (Barratt). | 2 | 2021–2021 |
Kaatz v. CITY OF SEASIDE
green
2 sentences2025If the public agency fails to file such a claim, “any interested person” may bring a claim to determine the validity of the agency’s action. (§ 863; Kaatz v. City of Seaside (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 13 , 29–30 (Kaatz).) A validation claim 5 Further statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure unless otherwise indicated. 10 by an interested person is commonly referred to as a “ ‘reverse validation action.’ ” (Kaatz, at p. 30, fn. 16.) In reviewing the constitutional issues raised in the instant “reverse validation” action, we exercise “independent judgment.” (See Silicon Valley Taxpaye 2025If the public agency fails to file such a claim, “any interested person” may bring a claim to determine the validity of the agency’s action. (§ 863; Kaatz v. City of Seaside (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 13 , 29–30 (Kaatz).) A validation claim 5 Further statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure unless otherwise indicated. 10 by an interested person is commonly referred to as a “ ‘reverse validation action.’ ” (Kaatz, at p. 30, fn. 16.) In reviewing the constitutional issues raised in the instant “reverse validation” action, we exercise “independent judgment.” (See Silicon Valley Taxpaye | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Katz v. Campbell Union High School District
green
1 sentence2025When any person files a validation action, the validity of the matter is decided once and for all in that action. (§ 870.)” (Katz, supra, 144 Cal.App.4th at p. 1032 ; see also § 870, subd. (a) [once final, the judgment in a validation proceeding “shall . . . be forever binding and conclusive, as to all matters therein adjudicated or which at that time could have been adjudicated, against the agency and against all other persons”].) “The very purpose of an in rem action is to provide a binding judgment against the world.” (Planning & Conservation, supra, 83 Cal.App.4th at p. 921 .) Thus, All Pe | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Planning & Conservation League v. Department of Water Resources
green
2 sentences2000(Planning & Conservation League v. Department of Water Resources (1998) 17 Cal.4th 264 [ 70 Cal.Rptr.2d 635 , 949 P.2d 488 ] (Planning & Conservation League I).) We now have before us the appeal of the judgment, including the dismissal of the validation claim, and a cross-appeal challenging the trial court’s ruling that the lead agency designation was improper. 2000(Planning & Conservation League v. Department of Water Resources (1998) 17 Cal.4th 264 [ 70 Cal.Rptr.2d 635 , 949 P.2d 488 ] (Planning & Conservation League I).) We now have before us the appeal of the judgment, including the dismissal of the validation claim, and a cross-appeal challenging the trial court’s ruling that the lead agency designation was improper. | 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.