Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
ยง

Louis E. v. Elan E.

85 Cal.App.4th 998 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Louis E. v. Elan E.

5 Citing cases

  1. Benson v. Kwikset Corp.

    152 Cal.App.4th 1254 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 58 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Vacating judgment and remanding to permit plaintiffs to seek leave to amend

    well established that the literal meaning of the words of a statute may be disregarded to avoid absurd results. ( People v. Anzalone (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1074, 1079 [ 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 315, 969 P.2d 160]; California School Employees Assn. v. Governing Board (1994) 8 Cal.4th 333, 340 [ 33 Cal.Rptr.2d 109, 878 P.2d 1321]; Times Mirror Co. v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1325, 1334, fn. 7 [ 283 Cal.Rptr. 893, 813 P.2d 240]; County of Sacramento v. Hickman (1967) 66 Cal.2d 841, 849, fn. 6 [ 59 Cal.Rptr. 609, 428 P.2d 593]; Silver v. Brown (1966) 63 Cal.2d 841, 845 [ 48 Cal.Rptr. 609, 409 P.2d 689]; California Insurance Guarantee Assn. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 358, 363 [ 5 Cal.Rptr.3d 127]; Upland Police Officers Assn. v. City of Upland (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1294, 1304 [ 4 Cal.Rptr.3d 629]; People v. Gnass (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 1271, 1302 [ 125 Cal.Rptr.2d 225]; Dowling v. Zimmerman (2001) 85 Cal.App.4th 1400, 1427 [ 103 Cal.Rptr.2d 174]; Guardianship of Elan E. (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 998, 1001 [ 102 Cal.Rptr.2d 528]; People v. Pecci (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1500, 1507 [ 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 43]; People v. Buena Vista Mines, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1030, 1034-1035 [ 56 Cal.Rptr.2d 21.]; Havlicek v. Coast-to-Coast Analytical Services, Inc. (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 1844, 1856 [ 46 Cal.Rptr.2d 696]; Unzueta v. Ocean View School Dist. (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1689, 1698 [ 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 614]; California Ins. Guarantee Assn. v. Liemsakul (1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 433, 439 [ 238 Cal.Rptr. 346]; see also Eyston v. Studd (K.B. 1574) 75 Eng.Rep. 688, 2 Plowd. 459.

  2. Benson v. Kwikset Corp.

    126 Cal.App.4th 887 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 20 times
    Holding amendments to the UCL enacted by approval of Proposition 64 applied to pending action on appeal

    ( People v. Anzalone (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1074, 1079 [ 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 315, 969 P.2d 160]; California School Employees Assn. v. Governing Board (1994) 8 Cal.4th 333, 340 [ 33 Cal.Rptr.2d 109, 878 P.2d 1321]; Times Mirror Co. v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1325, 1334, fn. 7 [ 283 Cal.Rptr. 893, 813 P.2d 240]; County of Sacramento v. Hickman (1967) 66 Cal.2d 841, 849, fn. 6 [ 59 Cal.Rptr. 609, 428 P.2d 593]; Silver v. Brown (1966) 63 Cal.2d 841, 845 [ 48 Cal.Rptr. 609, 409 P.2d 689]; California Ins. Guarantee Assn. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 358, 363 [ 5 Cal.Rptr.3d 127]; Upland Police Officers Assn. v. City of Upland (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1294, 1304 [ 4 Cal.Rptr.3d 629]; People v. Gnass (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 1271, 1302 [ 125 Cal.Rptr.2d 225]; Dowling v. Zimmerman (2001) 85 Cal.App.4th 1400, 1427 [ 103 Cal.Rptr.2d 174]; Guardianship of Elan E. (2001) 85 Cal.App.4th 998, 1001 [ 102 Cal.Rptr.2d 528]; People v. Pecci (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1500, 1507 [ 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 43]; People v. Buena Vista Mines, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1030, 1034-1035 [ 56 Cal.Rptr.2d 21]; Havlicek v. Coast-to-Coast Analytical Services, Inc. (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 1844, 1856 [ 46 Cal.Rptr.2d 696]; Unzueta v. Ocean View School Dist. (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1689, 1698 [ 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 614]; California Ins. Guarantee Assn. v. Liemsakul (1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 433, 439 [ 238 Cal.Rptr. 346]; see also Eyston v. Studd (K.B. 1574) 75 Eng. Rep. 688, 2 Plowd. 459.

  3. People v. Venice Suites, LLC

    71 Cal.App.5th 715 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021)   Cited 7 times

    These provisions of the LAMC and the Civil Code constrain our ability to extend the definition of Apartment House beyond what is set forth in the Zoning Code. The court's function "is simply to ascertain and declare what is in terms or in substance contained therein, not to insert what has been omitted, or to omit what has been inserted...." ( Code Civ. Proc., ยง 1858 ; Busker v. Wabtec Corp (2021) 11 Cal.5th 1147, 282 Cal.Rptr.3d 333, 492 P.3d 963 ; Guardianship of Elan E. (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 998, 1001, 102 Cal.Rptr.2d 528.) Even if we were free to adopt the common usage of the term, as the People urge us to do, we are not convinced an Apartment House is restricted to long-term occupancy.

  4. Benson v. Kwikset Corp.

    120 Cal.App.4th 301 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004)

    ( People v. Anzalone (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1074, 1079; California School Employees Assn. v. Governing Board (1994) 8 Cal.4th 333, 340; Times Mirror Co. v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1325, 1334, fn. 7; County of Sacramento v. Hickman (1967) 66 Cal.2d 841, 849, fn. 6; Silver v. Brown (1966) 63 Cal.2d 841, 845; California Ins. Guarantee Assn. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 358, 363; Upland Police Officers Assn. v. City of Upland (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1294, 1304; People v. Gnass (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 1271, 1302; Dowling v. Zimmerman (2001) 85 Cal.App.4th 1400, 1427; Guardianship of Elan E. (2001) 85 Cal.App.4th 998, 1001; People v. Pecci (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1500, 1507; People v. Buena Vista Mines, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1030, 1034-1035; Havlicek v. Coast-to-Coast Analytical Services, Inc. (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 1844, 1856; Unzueta v. Ocean View School Dist. (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1689, 1698; California Ins. Guarantee Assn. v. Liemsakul (1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 433, 439; see also Eyston v. Studd (K.B. 1574) 75 Eng. Rep. 688, 2 Plowd. 459.

  5. In re Daniel M.

    110 Cal.App.4th 703 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 147 times
    Dismissing alleged father's appeal from termination of parental rights based on ICWA error, because he lacked standing to raise the issue

    If a statute is unambiguous, it must be applied according to its plain terms. ( Guardianship of Elan E. (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 998, 1001.) Moreover, because the ICWA does not provide a standard for the acknowledgment or establishment of paternity, courts have resolved the issue under state law.