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.
23 California opinions name it 2 courts 1859–2004 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Harveygreen1 sentence2004(People v. Harvey, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 758.) The People argue that this case is within the exception. | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. Polhemusgreen1 sentence1955Ditch Co. v. Porter S. Ditch Co., 173 Cal. 149, 153 [ 159 P. 427 ]; Johnson v. Polhemus, 99 Cal. 240, 244 [ 33 P. 908 ].) The result in this case is within that rule. *294 Finally, Agnes complains that the trial court failed to recognize a $500 lien against the property awarded her in the ejectment action. | 1 | 1 |
Woods Cent. Irrigating Ditch Co. v. Porter Slough Ditch Co.green2 sentences1955Ditch Co. v. Porter S. Ditch Co., 173 Cal. 149, 153 [ 159 P. 427 ]; Johnson v. Polhemus, 99 Cal. 240, 244 [ 33 P. 908 ].) The result in this case is within that rule. *294 Finally, Agnes complains that the trial court failed to recognize a $500 lien against the property awarded her in the ejectment action. 1955Ditch Co. v. Porter S. Ditch Co., 173 Cal. 149, 153 [ 159 P. 427 ]; Johnson v. Polhemus, 99 Cal. 240, 244 [ 33 P. 908 ].) The result in this case is within that rule. *294 Finally, Agnes complains that the trial court failed to recognize a $500 lien against the property awarded her in the ejectment action. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Podwysgreen2 sentences1949They contend that the case is within the exception stated in People v. Podwys, 6 Cal.App.2d 71, 76 [ 44 P.2d 377 ], and People v. Simon, 80 Cal.App. 675, 679 [ 252 P. 758 ]), that where the “record fairly shows that the acts complained of are of such a character as to have produced an effect which, as a reasonable probability, could not have been obviated by any instructions to the jury, then the absence of such assignment and request will not preclude the defendant from raising the point in this court.” This contention requires us to consider the several instances of alleged misconduct and to 1949They contend that the case is within the exception stated in People v. Podwys, 6 Cal.App.2d 71, 76 [ 44 P.2d 377 ], and People v. Simon, 80 Cal.App. 675, 679 [ 252 P. 758 ]), that where the “record fairly shows that the acts complained of are of such a character as to have produced an effect which, as a reasonable probability, could not have been obviated by any instructions to the jury, then the absence of such assignment and request will not preclude the defendant from raising the point in this court.” This contention requires us to consider the several instances of alleged misconduct and to | 1 | 1 |
People v. Simongreen2 sentences1949They contend that the case is within the exception stated in People v. Podwys, 6 Cal.App.2d 71, 76 [ 44 P.2d 377 ], and People v. Simon, 80 Cal.App. 675, 679 [ 252 P. 758 ]), that where the “record fairly shows that the acts complained of are of such a character as to have produced an effect which, as a reasonable probability, could not have been obviated by any instructions to the jury, then the absence of such assignment and request will not preclude the defendant from raising the point in this court.” This contention requires us to consider the several instances of alleged misconduct and to 1949They contend that the case is within the exception stated in People v. Podwys, 6 Cal.App.2d 71, 76 [ 44 P.2d 377 ], and People v. Simon, 80 Cal.App. 675, 679 [ 252 P. 758 ]), that where the “record fairly shows that the acts complained of are of such a character as to have produced an effect which, as a reasonable probability, could not have been obviated by any instructions to the jury, then the absence of such assignment and request will not preclude the defendant from raising the point in this court.” This contention requires us to consider the several instances of alleged misconduct and to | 1 | 1 |
Akley v. Bassettgreen2 sentences1948Hence the case is within the rule stated in Akley v. Bassett, 189 Cal. 625, 641-2 [ 209 P. 576 ], as follows: “The rule is that when one enters avowedly as tenant in common with others, his possession is the possession of the others, so long as the tenancy in common is not disclaimed. 1948Hence the case is within the rule stated in Akley v. Bassett, 189 Cal. 625, 641-2 [ 209 P. 576 ], as follows: “The rule is that when one enters avowedly as tenant in common with others, his possession is the possession of the others, so long as the tenancy in common is not disclaimed. | 1 | 1 |
Borden v. Bordengreen2 sentences1924When parties so separate, the continuance of the separation does not give rise to a cause of action for divorce, until the consent of one is withdrawn, and neither is entitled to a divorce on the ground of desertion, for neither can say that the absence of the other was wrongful, at least not until the consent was revoked, though each may have intended to abandon the other.” (Borden v. Borden, 166 Cal. 469, 471 [137 Pac. 27]; Lewis v. Lewis, 167 Cal. 732, 734 [52 L. 1924When parties so separate, the continuance of the separation does not give rise to a cause of action for divorce, until the consent of one is withdrawn, and neither is entitled to a divorce on the ground of desertion, for neither can say that the absence of the other was wrongful, at least not until the consent was revoked, though each may have intended to abandon the other.” (Borden v. Borden, 166 Cal. 469, 471 [137 Pac. 27]; Lewis v. Lewis, 167 Cal. 732, 734 [52 L. | 1 | 1 |
Lewis v. Lewisgreen1 sentence1924When parties so separate, the continuance of the separation does not give rise to a cause of action for divorce, until the consent of one is withdrawn, and neither is entitled to a divorce on the ground of desertion, for neither can say that the absence of the other was wrongful, at least not until the consent was revoked, though each may have intended to abandon the other.” (Borden v. Borden, 166 Cal. 469, 471 [137 Pac. 27]; Lewis v. Lewis, 167 Cal. 732, 734 [52 L. | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. Chevrolet Motor Co.green2 sentences1922(Fahey v. Madden, 56 Cal. App. 593 [ 206 Pac. 128 , 209 Pac. 41 ]; Brown v. Chevrolet Motor Co., 39 Cal. App. 738, 741 [ 179 Pac. 697 ].) Under this state of facts, the case is within the rule announced in the case of Spence v. Fisher, 184 Cal. 209 [14 *89 A, L. 1922(Fahey v. Madden, 56 Cal. App. 593 [ 206 Pac. 128 , 209 Pac. 41 ]; Brown v. Chevrolet Motor Co., 39 Cal. App. 738, 741 [ 179 Pac. 697 ].) Under this state of facts, the case is within the rule announced in the case of Spence v. Fisher, 184 Cal. 209 [14 *89 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 |
|---|---|---|
Shea v. City of San Bernardino
green
1 sentence1941The case is within the principle declared in Shea v. City of San Bernardino (1936), 7 Cal. (2d) 688, 694 [ 62 Pac. (2d) 365 ], The case is not like those cited by defendant Scott wherein independent torts cause separate and independent injuries, in which cases of course there is no joint liability for the aggregate of all the injuries. | 1 | 1941–1941 |
Lassen County v. Shinn
neutral
2 sentences1922The power of the board to make such contracts has often been upheld (People v. Wheeler, supra; Lassen County v. Shinn, 88 Cal. 510 [ 26 Pac. 365 ]; Power v. May, 123 Cal. 147 [ 55 Pac. 796 ].) There is no merit in the objection. 1922The power of the board to make such contracts has often been upheld (People v. Wheeler, supra; Lassen County v. Shinn, 88 Cal. 510 [ 26 Pac. 365 ]; Power v. May, 123 Cal. 147 [ 55 Pac. 796 ].) There is no merit in the objection. | 1 | 1922–1922 |
Power v. May
neutral
2 sentences1922The power of the board to make such contracts has often been upheld (People v. Wheeler, supra; Lassen County v. Shinn, 88 Cal. 510 [ 26 Pac. 365 ]; Power v. May, 123 Cal. 147 [ 55 Pac. 796 ].) There is no merit in the objection. 1922The power of the board to make such contracts has often been upheld (People v. Wheeler, supra; Lassen County v. Shinn, 88 Cal. 510 [ 26 Pac. 365 ]; Power v. May, 123 Cal. 147 [ 55 Pac. 796 ].) There is no merit in the objection. | 1 | 1922–1922 |
Fahey v. Madden
green
1 sentence1922(Fahey v. Madden, 56 Cal. App. 593 [ 206 Pac. 128 , 209 Pac. 41 ]; Brown v. Chevrolet Motor Co., 39 Cal. App. 738, 741 [ 179 Pac. 697 ].) Under this state of facts, the case is within the rule announced in the case of Spence v. Fisher, 184 Cal. 209 [14 *89 A, L. | 1 | 1922–1922 |
Fahey v. Madden
green
2 sentences1922(Fahey v. Madden, 56 Cal. App. 593 [ 206 Pac. 128 , 209 Pac. 41 ]; Brown v. Chevrolet Motor Co., 39 Cal. App. 738, 741 [ 179 Pac. 697 ].) Under this state of facts, the case is within the rule announced in the case of Spence v. Fisher, 184 Cal. 209 [14 *89 A, L. 1922(Fahey v. Madden, 56 Cal. App. 593 [ 206 Pac. 128 , 209 Pac. 41 ]; Brown v. Chevrolet Motor Co., 39 Cal. App. 738, 741 [ 179 Pac. 697 ].) Under this state of facts, the case is within the rule announced in the case of Spence v. Fisher, 184 Cal. 209 [14 *89 A, L. | 1 | 1922–1922 |
Spence v. Fisher
green
2 sentences1922(Fahey v. Madden, 56 Cal. App. 593 [ 206 Pac. 128 , 209 Pac. 41 ]; Brown v. Chevrolet Motor Co., 39 Cal. App. 738, 741 [ 179 Pac. 697 ].) Under this state of facts, the case is within the rule announced in the case of Spence v. Fisher, 184 Cal. 209 [14 *89 A, L. 1922R 1083, 193 Pac. 255 ], wherein it is said: “But it seems to us that it cannot reasonably be held that a member of the family using a car so provided, kept, and maintained by the father for the pleasure and convenience of his family, solely on his own mission for his own personal pleasure or convenience, is acting for his father or is engaged on the father’s business, notwithstanding that such use was one of the purposes for which the car was provided and maintained. | 1 | 1922–1922 |
Williamson v. Cummings Rock Drill Co.
neutral
2 sentences1921The case is within the rule of Williamson v. Cummings etc. Co., 95 Cal. 652 , [ 30 Pac. 762 ], and similar authorities. 1921The case is within the rule of Williamson v. Cummings etc. Co., 95 Cal. 652 , [ 30 Pac. 762 ], and similar authorities. | 1 | 1921–1921 |
In re South Mountain Consolidated Mining Co.
neutral
1 sentence1921The case is within the rule of the South Mountain Mining Company case ( 7 Sawy. 30 , 3 Fed. 403 ), wherein it was held, in effect, that the stockholders of a mining corporation are not liable to the corporation’s judgment creditors even *612 though, their shares were issued as fully paid in exchange for mining properties taken at an overvaluation. 4. | 1 | 1921–1921 |
In Re Avdalas
green
2 sentences1920The case is within the doctrine enunciated in Re Avdalas, 10 Cal. App. 507 , [ 102 Pac. 674 ], a habeas corpus proceeding, where, contrary to the contention of petitioner here, the court holds that “the writ of habeas corpus cannot be made to serve the office of a demurrer . . . and will not lie when the court has jurisdiction of the kind of offense charged, and there is an attempt, however defective, and however subject to a demurrer, to state a public offense, and the facts alleged squint at a substantive statement of such offense.” The writ is discharged and the prisoner remanded. 1920The case is within the doctrine enunciated in Re Avdalas, 10 Cal. App. 507 , [ 102 Pac. 674 ], a habeas corpus proceeding, where, contrary to the contention of petitioner here, the court holds that “the writ of habeas corpus cannot be made to serve the office of a demurrer . . . and will not lie when the court has jurisdiction of the kind of offense charged, and there is an attempt, however defective, and however subject to a demurrer, to state a public offense, and the facts alleged squint at a substantive statement of such offense.” The writ is discharged and the prisoner remanded. | 1 | 1920–1920 |
Adamson v. Paonessa
green
2 sentences1919In this respect the case is within the doctrine declared in Adamson v. Paonessa, 180 Cal. 157 , [ 179 Pac. 880 ]. 1919In this respect the case is within the doctrine declared in Adamson v. Paonessa, 180 Cal. 157 , [ 179 Pac. 880 ]. | 1 | 1919–1919 |
Scholle v. Finnell
green
2 sentences1916In other words, the case is within the doctrine of those discussed by Mr. Justice Lorigan in Scholle v. Finnell, 166 Cal. 546 -550 et seq., [ 137 P. 241 ]. 1916In other words, the case is within the doctrine of those discussed by Mr. Justice Lorigan in Scholle v. Finnell, 166 Cal. 546 -550 et seq., [ 137 P. 241 ]. | 1 | 1916–1916 |
People v. Whalen
green
1 sentence1912The check having been cashed and the money obtained thereon, the case is within the rule followed in People v. Whalen, 154 Cal, 472, [ 98 Pac. 194 ], The evidence therefore sufficiently proves a larceny of money. | 1 | 1912–1912 |
Gilson Quartz Mining Co. v. Gilson
neutral
1 sentence1900Cases of that nature arise when a party has been led by fraudulent contrivance to accept less money than was due him on an undisputed claim, as in Gilson etc. Co. v. Gilson, 47 Cal. 597 , and in some other instances not necessary to be illustrated now. | 1 | 1900–1900 |
Perry v. Quackenbush
green
2 sentences1898The case is within the rule which forbids the impeachment of findings of ultimate facts by comparing them with other findings of mere probative facts which have no proper place in findings at all: Rowe v. Blake, 112 Cal. 637 , 44 Pac. 1084 ; Rankin v. Newman, 107 Cal. 608 , 40 Pac. 1024 , 41 Pac. 304 ; Perry v. Quackenbush, 105 Cal. 299 , 38 Pac. 740 . 1898The case is within the rule which forbids the impeachment of findings of ultimate facts by comparing them with other findings of mere probative facts which have no proper place in findings at all: Rowe v. Blake, 112 Cal. 637 , 44 Pac. 1084 ; Rankin v. Newman, 107 Cal. 608 , 40 Pac. 1024 , 41 Pac. 304 ; Perry v. Quackenbush, 105 Cal. 299 , 38 Pac. 740 . | 1 | 1898–1898 |
Rankin v. Newman
green
1 sentence1898The case is within the rule which forbids the impeachment of findings of ultimate facts by comparing them with other findings of mere probative facts which have no proper place in findings at all: Rowe v. Blake, 112 Cal. 637 , 44 Pac. 1084 ; Rankin v. Newman, 107 Cal. 608 , 40 Pac. 1024 , 41 Pac. 304 ; Perry v. Quackenbush, 105 Cal. 299 , 38 Pac. 740 . | 1 | 1898–1898 |
Hotchkiss v. Smith
green
1 sentence1898The case is within the rule which forbids the impeachment of findings of ultimate facts by comparing them with other findings of mere probative facts which have no proper place in findings at all: Rowe v. Blake, 112 Cal. 637 , 44 Pac. 1084 ; Rankin v. Newman, 107 Cal. 608 , 40 Pac. 1024 , 41 Pac. 304 ; Perry v. Quackenbush, 105 Cal. 299 , 38 Pac. 740 . | 1 | 1898–1898 |
Rowe v. Blake
green
2 sentences1898The case is within the rule which forbids the impeachment of findings of ultimate facts by comparing them with other findings of mere probative facts which have no proper place in findings at all: Rowe v. Blake, 112 Cal. 637 , 44 Pac. 1084 ; Rankin v. Newman, 107 Cal. 608 , 40 Pac. 1024 , 41 Pac. 304 ; Perry v. Quackenbush, 105 Cal. 299 , 38 Pac. 740 . 1898The case is within the rule which forbids the impeachment of findings of ultimate facts by comparing them with other findings of mere probative facts which have no proper place in findings at all: Rowe v. Blake, 112 Cal. 637 , 44 Pac. 1084 ; Rankin v. Newman, 107 Cal. 608 , 40 Pac. 1024 , 41 Pac. 304 ; Perry v. Quackenbush, 105 Cal. 299 , 38 Pac. 740 . | 1 | 1898–1898 |
Mills v. La Verne Land Co.
neutral
1 sentence1895Appellant contends that, if Goss did not sell until after the completion of the contract, then a new partnership was created, and, as the new firm filed a lien for a claim held by the old firm, the case is within the rule that a right to create a lien cannot be assigned, as stated in Mills v. La Verne Land Co., 97 Cal. 254 ; 33 Am. | 1 | 1895–1895 |
| Ackley & Dana v. Chamberlain green | 1 | 1894–1894 |
Skinner v. Hall
green
1 sentence1894Dec. 516 ; Skinner v. Hall, 69 Cal. 195 ; Lubbock v. McMann, 82 Cal. 226 ; 16 Am. | 1 | 1894–1894 |
Lubbock v. McMann
green
1 sentence1894Dec. 516 ; Skinner v. Hall, 69 Cal. 195 ; Lubbock v. McMann, 82 Cal. 226 ; 16 Am. | 1 | 1894–1894 |
Heathman v. Holmes
neutral
1 sentence1894The case is within the rule of Heathman v. Holmes, 94 Cal. 291 ; Ackley v. Chamberlain, 16 Cal. 181 ; 76 Am. | 1 | 1894–1894 |
| Camron v. Kenfield green | 1 | 1882–1882 |
| Stark v. Raney neutral | 1 | 1867–1867 |
| Spencer v. Prindle neutral | 1 | 1866–1866 |
| People v. Boggs neutral | 1 | 1863–1863 |
| Dana v. Stanfords green | 1 | 1859–1859 |
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.