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.
6 California opinions name it 1 courts 1997–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Sexton v. Superior Court of Los Angeles Countygreen2 sentences2026(See Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410 [untimely motions to compel “renders the court without authority to rule on [the motions] other than to deny them”].) The failure to timely challenge inadequate deposition testimony in the trial court forfeits the issue. 2023The statutes authorizing the Woods’ motions to compel further discovery responses state that “[u]nless notice of [the motion to compel] is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the propounding 4 party waives any right to compel a further response to the” interrogatories or requests for production of documents. (§§ 2030.300, subd. (c); 2031.310, subd. (c).) The 45-day deadline in these statutes is “ ‘jurisdictional | 1 | 5 |
Young v. Daimler AG CA1/4green1 sentence2026(Young v. Daimler AG (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 855, 867, fn. 7 .) Accordingly, Kenny has not demonstrated prejudicial misconduct, and the trial court acted within its discretion in denying his new trial motion on that ground. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Vidal Sassoon, Inc. v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence1997(Lincolnshire Condominium Ltd. v. Superior Court (1984) 158 Cal.App.3d 524 . . . ; cf. Vidal Sassoon, Inc. v. Superior Court[, supra, ] 147 Cal.App.3d 681 . . . .)” ( 225 Cal.App.3d at p. 902 , italics added.) We do not believe the 45-day limitation is “jurisdictional” in the fundamental sense, but is only “jurisdictional” in the sense that it renders the court without authority to rule on motions to compel other than to deny them. 4 IV Civil Law and Motion Rule 9.15 Mullikin contends that Sexton’s failure to file written opposition on the ground of timeliness creates an inference that the mot | 1 | 1997–1997 |
LINCOLNSHIRE CONDOMINIUM, LTD. v. Superior Court
neutral
1 sentence1997(Lincolnshire Condominium Ltd. v. Superior Court (1984) 158 Cal.App.3d 524 . . . ; cf. Vidal Sassoon, Inc. v. Superior Court[, supra, ] 147 Cal.App.3d 681 . . . .)” ( 225 Cal.App.3d at p. 902 , italics added.) We do not believe the 45-day limitation is “jurisdictional” in the fundamental sense, but is only “jurisdictional” in the sense that it renders the court without authority to rule on motions to compel other than to deny them. 4 IV Civil Law and Motion Rule 9.15 Mullikin contends that Sexton’s failure to file written opposition on the ground of timeliness creates an inference that the mot | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Standon Co. v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence1997(Lincolnshire Condominium Ltd. v. Superior Court (1984) 158 Cal.App.3d 524 . . . ; cf. Vidal Sassoon, Inc. v. Superior Court[, supra, ] 147 Cal.App.3d 681 . . . .)” ( 225 Cal.App.3d at p. 902 , italics added.) We do not believe the 45-day limitation is “jurisdictional” in the fundamental sense, but is only “jurisdictional” in the sense that it renders the court without authority to rule on motions to compel other than to deny them. 4 IV Civil Law and Motion Rule 9.15 Mullikin contends that Sexton’s failure to file written opposition on the ground of timeliness creates an inference that the mot | 1 | 1997–1997 |
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.