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 1931–2003 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bartley v. Karasgreen2 sentences1985Rather, the right to redeem is dependent on the facts, and the trial court has discretion to weigh the equities of the case to determine the just result. ( Bartley v. Karas (1983) 150 Cal. App.3d 336, 344 [ 197 Cal. Rptr. 749 ]; Kosloff v. Castle (1981) 115 Cal. App.3d 369, 376 [ 171 Cal. Rptr. 308 ]; Kay v. Kay (1961) 188 Cal. App.2d 214, 219 [ 10 Cal. Rptr. 196 ]; Scarbery v. Bill Patch Land & Water Co. (1960) 184 Cal. App.2d 87, 103, 106 [ 7 Cal. Rptr. 408 ]; Petersen v. Ridenour (1955) 135 Cal. App.2d 720, 728-730 [ 287 P.2d 848 ]; see also MacFadden v. Walker (1971) 5 Cal.3d 809, 814 [ 97 1985Rather, the right to redeem is dependent on the facts, and the trial court has discretion to weigh the equities of the case to determine the just result. ( Bartley v. Karas (1983) 150 Cal. App.3d 336, 344 [ 197 Cal. Rptr. 749 ]; Kosloff v. Castle (1981) 115 Cal. App.3d 369, 376 [ 171 Cal. Rptr. 308 ]; Kay v. Kay (1961) 188 Cal. App.2d 214, 219 [ 10 Cal. Rptr. 196 ]; Scarbery v. Bill Patch Land & Water Co. (1960) 184 Cal. App.2d 87, 103, 106 [ 7 Cal. Rptr. 408 ]; Petersen v. Ridenour (1955) 135 Cal. App.2d 720, 728-730 [ 287 P.2d 848 ]; see also MacFadden v. Walker (1971) 5 Cal.3d 809, 814 [ 97 | 1 | 1 |
Kosloff v. Castlegreen2 sentences1985Rather, the right to redeem is dependent on the facts, and the trial court has discretion to weigh the equities of the case to determine the just result. ( Bartley v. Karas (1983) 150 Cal. App.3d 336, 344 [ 197 Cal. Rptr. 749 ]; Kosloff v. Castle (1981) 115 Cal. App.3d 369, 376 [ 171 Cal. Rptr. 308 ]; Kay v. Kay (1961) 188 Cal. App.2d 214, 219 [ 10 Cal. Rptr. 196 ]; Scarbery v. Bill Patch Land & Water Co. (1960) 184 Cal. App.2d 87, 103, 106 [ 7 Cal. Rptr. 408 ]; Petersen v. Ridenour (1955) 135 Cal. App.2d 720, 728-730 [ 287 P.2d 848 ]; see also MacFadden v. Walker (1971) 5 Cal.3d 809, 814 [ 97 1985Rather, the right to redeem is dependent on the facts, and the trial court has discretion to weigh the equities of the case to determine the just result. ( Bartley v. Karas (1983) 150 Cal. App.3d 336, 344 [ 197 Cal. Rptr. 749 ]; Kosloff v. Castle (1981) 115 Cal. App.3d 369, 376 [ 171 Cal. Rptr. 308 ]; Kay v. Kay (1961) 188 Cal. App.2d 214, 219 [ 10 Cal. Rptr. 196 ]; Scarbery v. Bill Patch Land & Water Co. (1960) 184 Cal. App.2d 87, 103, 106 [ 7 Cal. Rptr. 408 ]; Petersen v. Ridenour (1955) 135 Cal. App.2d 720, 728-730 [ 287 P.2d 848 ]; see also MacFadden v. Walker (1971) 5 Cal.3d 809, 814 [ 97 | 1 | 1 |
MacFadden v. Walkergreen2 sentences1985Rather, the right to redeem is dependent on the facts, and the trial court has discretion to weigh the equities of the case to determine the just result. ( Bartley v. Karas (1983) 150 Cal. App.3d 336, 344 [ 197 Cal. Rptr. 749 ]; Kosloff v. Castle (1981) 115 Cal. App.3d 369, 376 [ 171 Cal. Rptr. 308 ]; Kay v. Kay (1961) 188 Cal. App.2d 214, 219 [ 10 Cal. Rptr. 196 ]; Scarbery v. Bill Patch Land & Water Co. (1960) 184 Cal. App.2d 87, 103, 106 [ 7 Cal. Rptr. 408 ]; Petersen v. Ridenour (1955) 135 Cal. App.2d 720, 728-730 [ 287 P.2d 848 ]; see also MacFadden v. Walker (1971) 5 Cal.3d 809, 814 [ 97 1985Rather, the right to redeem is dependent on the facts, and the trial court has discretion to weigh the equities of the case to determine the just result. ( Bartley v. Karas (1983) 150 Cal. App.3d 336, 344 [ 197 Cal. Rptr. 749 ]; Kosloff v. Castle (1981) 115 Cal. App.3d 369, 376 [ 171 Cal. Rptr. 308 ]; Kay v. Kay (1961) 188 Cal. App.2d 214, 219 [ 10 Cal. Rptr. 196 ]; Scarbery v. Bill Patch Land & Water Co. (1960) 184 Cal. App.2d 87, 103, 106 [ 7 Cal. Rptr. 408 ]; Petersen v. Ridenour (1955) 135 Cal. App.2d 720, 728-730 [ 287 P.2d 848 ]; see also MacFadden v. Walker (1971) 5 Cal.3d 809, 814 [ 97 | 1 | 1 |
Petersen v. Ridenourgreen2 sentences1985Rather, the right to redeem is dependent on the facts, and the trial court has discretion to weigh the equities of the case to determine the just result. ( Bartley v. Karas (1983) 150 Cal. App.3d 336, 344 [ 197 Cal. Rptr. 749 ]; Kosloff v. Castle (1981) 115 Cal. App.3d 369, 376 [ 171 Cal. Rptr. 308 ]; Kay v. Kay (1961) 188 Cal. App.2d 214, 219 [ 10 Cal. Rptr. 196 ]; Scarbery v. Bill Patch Land & Water Co. (1960) 184 Cal. App.2d 87, 103, 106 [ 7 Cal. Rptr. 408 ]; Petersen v. Ridenour (1955) 135 Cal. App.2d 720, 728-730 [ 287 P.2d 848 ]; see also MacFadden v. Walker (1971) 5 Cal.3d 809, 814 [ 97 1985Rather, the right to redeem is dependent on the facts, and the trial court has discretion to weigh the equities of the case to determine the just result. ( Bartley v. Karas (1983) 150 Cal. App.3d 336, 344 [ 197 Cal. Rptr. 749 ]; Kosloff v. Castle (1981) 115 Cal. App.3d 369, 376 [ 171 Cal. Rptr. 308 ]; Kay v. Kay (1961) 188 Cal. App.2d 214, 219 [ 10 Cal. Rptr. 196 ]; Scarbery v. Bill Patch Land & Water Co. (1960) 184 Cal. App.2d 87, 103, 106 [ 7 Cal. Rptr. 408 ]; Petersen v. Ridenour (1955) 135 Cal. App.2d 720, 728-730 [ 287 P.2d 848 ]; see also MacFadden v. Walker (1971) 5 Cal.3d 809, 814 [ 97 | 1 | 1 |
Scarbery v. Bill Patch Land & Water Co.green2 sentences1985Rather, the right to redeem is dependent on the facts, and the trial court has discretion to weigh the equities of the case to determine the just result. ( Bartley v. Karas (1983) 150 Cal. App.3d 336, 344 [ 197 Cal. Rptr. 749 ]; Kosloff v. Castle (1981) 115 Cal. App.3d 369, 376 [ 171 Cal. Rptr. 308 ]; Kay v. Kay (1961) 188 Cal. App.2d 214, 219 [ 10 Cal. Rptr. 196 ]; Scarbery v. Bill Patch Land & Water Co. (1960) 184 Cal. App.2d 87, 103, 106 [ 7 Cal. Rptr. 408 ]; Petersen v. Ridenour (1955) 135 Cal. App.2d 720, 728-730 [ 287 P.2d 848 ]; see also MacFadden v. Walker (1971) 5 Cal.3d 809, 814 [ 97 1985Rather, the right to redeem is dependent on the facts, and the trial court has discretion to weigh the equities of the case to determine the just result. ( Bartley v. Karas (1983) 150 Cal. App.3d 336, 344 [ 197 Cal. Rptr. 749 ]; Kosloff v. Castle (1981) 115 Cal. App.3d 369, 376 [ 171 Cal. Rptr. 308 ]; Kay v. Kay (1961) 188 Cal. App.2d 214, 219 [ 10 Cal. Rptr. 196 ]; Scarbery v. Bill Patch Land & Water Co. (1960) 184 Cal. App.2d 87, 103, 106 [ 7 Cal. Rptr. 408 ]; Petersen v. Ridenour (1955) 135 Cal. App.2d 720, 728-730 [ 287 P.2d 848 ]; see also MacFadden v. Walker (1971) 5 Cal.3d 809, 814 [ 97 | 1 | 1 |
Kay v. Kaygreen2 sentences1985Rather, the right to redeem is dependent on the facts, and the trial court has discretion to weigh the equities of the case to determine the just result. ( Bartley v. Karas (1983) 150 Cal. App.3d 336, 344 [ 197 Cal. Rptr. 749 ]; Kosloff v. Castle (1981) 115 Cal. App.3d 369, 376 [ 171 Cal. Rptr. 308 ]; Kay v. Kay (1961) 188 Cal. App.2d 214, 219 [ 10 Cal. Rptr. 196 ]; Scarbery v. Bill Patch Land & Water Co. (1960) 184 Cal. App.2d 87, 103, 106 [ 7 Cal. Rptr. 408 ]; Petersen v. Ridenour (1955) 135 Cal. App.2d 720, 728-730 [ 287 P.2d 848 ]; see also MacFadden v. Walker (1971) 5 Cal.3d 809, 814 [ 97 1985Rather, the right to redeem is dependent on the facts, and the trial court has discretion to weigh the equities of the case to determine the just result. ( Bartley v. Karas (1983) 150 Cal. App.3d 336, 344 [ 197 Cal. Rptr. 749 ]; Kosloff v. Castle (1981) 115 Cal. App.3d 369, 376 [ 171 Cal. Rptr. 308 ]; Kay v. Kay (1961) 188 Cal. App.2d 214, 219 [ 10 Cal. Rptr. 196 ]; Scarbery v. Bill Patch Land & Water Co. (1960) 184 Cal. App.2d 87, 103, 106 [ 7 Cal. Rptr. 408 ]; Petersen v. Ridenour (1955) 135 Cal. App.2d 720, 728-730 [ 287 P.2d 848 ]; see also MacFadden v. Walker (1971) 5 Cal.3d 809, 814 [ 97 | 1 | 1 |
Milton Kauffman, Inc. v. Smithgreen2 sentences1948(Milton Kauffman, Inc. v. Smith, 82 Cal.App.2d 302, 303 [ 186 P.2d 11 ] ; Cleary v. Folger, 84 Cal. 316, 319 [ 24 P. 280 , 18 Am.St.Rep. 187 ]; Grey v. Tubbs, 43 Cal. 359, 363 .) Upon his failure to make payment the vendee committed a breach, and no affirmative act by the vendor was necessary to terminate the vendee’s right of enforcement. 1948(Milton Kauffman, Inc. v. Smith, 82 Cal.App.2d 302, 303 [ 186 P.2d 11 ] ; Cleary v. Folger, 84 Cal. 316, 319 [ 24 P. 280 , 18 Am.St.Rep. 187 ]; Grey v. Tubbs, 43 Cal. 359, 363 .) Upon his failure to make payment the vendee committed a breach, and no affirmative act by the vendor was necessary to terminate the vendee’s right of enforcement. | 1 | 1 |
Cleary v. Folgergreen2 sentences1948(Milton Kauffman, Inc. v. Smith, 82 Cal.App.2d 302, 303 [ 186 P.2d 11 ] ; Cleary v. Folger, 84 Cal. 316, 319 [ 24 P. 280 , 18 Am.St.Rep. 187 ]; Grey v. Tubbs, 43 Cal. 359, 363 .) Upon his failure to make payment the vendee committed a breach, and no affirmative act by the vendor was necessary to terminate the vendee’s right of enforcement. 1948(Milton Kauffman, Inc. v. Smith, 82 Cal.App.2d 302, 303 [ 186 P.2d 11 ] ; Cleary v. Folger, 84 Cal. 316, 319 [ 24 P. 280 , 18 Am.St.Rep. 187 ]; Grey v. Tubbs, 43 Cal. 359, 363 .) Upon his failure to make payment the vendee committed a breach, and no affirmative act by the vendor was necessary to terminate the vendee’s right of enforcement. | 1 | 1 |
Hildebrand v. Beckgreen1 sentence1931(Hildebrand v. Beck, 196 Cal. 141, 145 [39 A. L. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Fogarty v. Saathoff
green
2 sentences2003(Fogarty v. Saathoff (1982) 128 Cal.App.3d 780 [ 180 Cal.Rptr. 484 ].) In Fogarty , the buyer was to place into escrow notification of loan approval and the sellers were to deposit a termite report and title insurance. 2003(Fogarty v. Saathoff (1982) 128 Cal.App.3d 780 [ 180 Cal.Rptr. 484 ].) In Fogarty , the buyer was to place into escrow notification of loan approval and the sellers were to deposit a termite report and title insurance. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Fairchild v. Mullan
green
2 sentences1985Co. v. Allen (1896) 112 Cal. 455 [ 44 P. 796 ] (again, it was the vendor who sought a judgment foreclosing the vendee’s interest after allowing time to perform); (4) Fairchild v. Mullan (1891) 90 Cal. 190 [ 27 P. 201 ] (in that case the vendor did not challenge the trial court’s allowance of time to perform). 1985Co. v. Allen (1896) 112 Cal. 455 [ 44 P. 796 ] (again, it was the vendor who sought a judgment foreclosing the vendee’s interest after allowing time to perform); (4) Fairchild v. Mullan (1891) 90 Cal. 190 [ 27 P. 201 ] (in that case the vendor did not challenge the trial court’s allowance of time to perform). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Southern Pacific Railroad v. Allen
green
2 sentences1985Co. v. Allen (1896) 112 Cal. 455 [ 44 P. 796 ] (again, it was the vendor who sought a judgment foreclosing the vendee’s interest after allowing time to perform); (4) Fairchild v. Mullan (1891) 90 Cal. 190 [ 27 P. 201 ] (in that case the vendor did not challenge the trial court’s allowance of time to perform). 1985Co. v. Allen (1896) 112 Cal. 455 [ 44 P. 796 ] (again, it was the vendor who sought a judgment foreclosing the vendee’s interest after allowing time to perform); (4) Fairchild v. Mullan (1891) 90 Cal. 190 [ 27 P. 201 ] (in that case the vendor did not challenge the trial court’s allowance of time to perform). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Russell v. Williams
green
2 sentences1980So, the defendant, having a vendor’s lien, had an insurable interest to the extent of the unpaid purchase money, and could insure for his own benefit to protect his own interest, and having insured the building at his own expense, and for his own benefit, the plaintiff had no interest in the insurance money paid to defendant, and could not require that any part of it should be applied in satisfaction of the defendant’s claim for the unpaid purchase money.” Another case that touches upon this problem, although not exactly on point, is Russell v. Williams (1962) 58 Cal.2d 487 [ 24 Cal.Rptr. 859 1980So, the defendant, having a vendor’s lien, had an insurable interest to the extent of the unpaid purchase money, and could insure for his own benefit to protect his own interest, and having insured the building at his own expense, and for his own benefit, the plaintiff had no interest in the insurance money paid to defendant, and could not require that any part of it should be applied in satisfaction of the defendant’s claim for the unpaid purchase money.” Another case that touches upon this problem, although not exactly on point, is Russell v. Williams (1962) 58 Cal.2d 487 [ 24 Cal.Rptr. 859 | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Grey v. Tubbs
neutral
1 sentence1948(Milton Kauffman, Inc. v. Smith, 82 Cal.App.2d 302, 303 [ 186 P.2d 11 ] ; Cleary v. Folger, 84 Cal. 316, 319 [ 24 P. 280 , 18 Am.St.Rep. 187 ]; Grey v. Tubbs, 43 Cal. 359, 363 .) Upon his failure to make payment the vendee committed a breach, and no affirmative act by the vendor was necessary to terminate the vendee’s right of enforcement. | 1 | 1948–1948 |
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.