case squarely within rule in California

15 California opinions name it 2 courts 1909–1963 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.

Followed or applied (7)

Case	Followed	Cited
Dairy Dale Co. v. Azevedogreen cal · 1931 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1952–1952 2 sentences 1952The rule is thus stated: “There is no merit in this assertion (that the customer lists were not secret), since obviously it is not merely the knowledge of the identity of the customers, but the friendly contact with them which is important to the solicitors: ‘. . . they became personally acquainted with the customers of the respondent, their respective places of residence, their peculiar likes and fancies and other charaeteristcs, a knowledge of which would greatly aid them in securing and retaining the business of said former customers.' ” (Dairy Dale Co. v. Azevedo, 211 Cal. 344, 345 [ 295 P 1952The rule is thus stated: “There is no merit in this assertion (that the customer lists were not secret), since obviously it is not merely the knowledge of the identity of the customers, but the friendly contact with them which is important to the solicitors: ‘. . . they became personally acquainted with the customers of the respondent, their respective places of residence, their peculiar likes and fancies and other charaeteristcs, a knowledge of which would greatly aid them in securing and retaining the business of said former customers.' ” (Dairy Dale Co. v. Azevedo, 211 Cal. 344, 345 [ 295 P	1	1
Cathcart v. Gregorygreen calctapp · 1941 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1945–1945 2 sentences 1945This brings the case squarely within the rule of Cathcart v. Gregory, 45 Cal.App.2d 179, 185, 187 [ 113 P.2d 894 ], where the court held that, under somewhat similar facts, the presence of the client in court at the time the stipulation was made, and her failure to make objection, was an implied authorization to her attorney to execute it. 1945This brings the case squarely within the rule of Cathcart v. Gregory, 45 Cal.App.2d 179, 185, 187 [ 113 P.2d 894 ], where the court held that, under somewhat similar facts, the presence of the client in court at the time the stipulation was made, and her failure to make objection, was an implied authorization to her attorney to execute it.	1	1
Koster v. Southern Pacific Co.green cal · 1929 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1933–1933 2 sentences 1933Co., 207 Cal. 753, 761 [ 279 Pac. 788 ], and Young v. Pacific Elec. 1933Co., 207 Cal. 753, 761 [ 279 Pac. 788 ], and Young v. Pacific Elec.	1	1
Auzerais v. Nagleegreen cal · 1887 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1931–1931 2 sentences 1931(Auzerais v. Naglee, 74 Cal. 60, 67 [ 15 Pac. 371 ]; 1 R. 1931(Auzerais v. Naglee, 74 Cal. 60, 67 [ 15 Pac. 371 ]; 1 R.	1	1
Lummer v. Unruhgreen calctapp · 1914 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1929–1929 2 sentences 1929The evidence brings the case squarely within the rule of Lummer v. Unruh, 25 Cal. App. 97, 104 [ 142 Pac. 914 ], and Fitzimons v. Atherton, 162 Cal. 630, 632 [ 124 Pac. 250 ], which were followed in the Green and Jacoby cases above referred to. 1929The evidence brings the case squarely within the rule of Lummer v. Unruh, 25 Cal. App. 97, 104 [ 142 Pac. 914 ], and Fitzimons v. Atherton, 162 Cal. 630, 632 [ 124 Pac. 250 ], which were followed in the Green and Jacoby cases above referred to.	1	1
Fitzimons v. Athertongreen cal · 1912 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1929–1929 2 sentences 1929The evidence brings the case squarely within the rule of Lummer v. Unruh, 25 Cal. App. 97, 104 [ 142 Pac. 914 ], and Fitzimons v. Atherton, 162 Cal. 630, 632 [ 124 Pac. 250 ], which were followed in the Green and Jacoby cases above referred to. 1929The evidence brings the case squarely within the rule of Lummer v. Unruh, 25 Cal. App. 97, 104 [ 142 Pac. 914 ], and Fitzimons v. Atherton, 162 Cal. 630, 632 [ 124 Pac. 250 ], which were followed in the Green and Jacoby cases above referred to.	1	1
In re Estate of Redfieldgreen cal · 1897 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1925–1925 2 sentences 1925This evidence brings this case squarely within the rule laid down in the cases of In re Redfield, 116 Cal. 637 780 [ 48 Pac. 794 ]; Estate of Chevallier, 159 Cal. 161 [ 113 Pac. 130 ]; Estate of Purcell, 164 Cal. 300 [ 128 Pac. 932 ]; Estate of Collins, 174 Cal. 663 [ 164 Pac. 1110 ]; Estate of Perkins, 195 Cal. 699 [ 235 Pac. 45 ]. 1925This evidence brings this case squarely within the rule laid down in the cases of In re Redfield, 116 Cal. 637 780 [ 48 Pac. 794 ]; Estate of Chevallier, 159 Cal. 161 [ 113 Pac. 130 ]; Estate of Purcell, 164 Cal. 300 [ 128 Pac. 932 ]; Estate of Collins, 174 Cal. 663 [ 164 Pac. 1110 ]; Estate of Perkins, 195 Cal. 699 [ 235 Pac. 45 ].	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (18)

Case	Cited	Years
People v. Robbins green cal · 1915 2 sentences 1952In that case the circumstances shown by the testimony of the complaining witness brought the case squarely within the rule of People v. Robbins, 171 Cal. 466 [ 154 P. 317 ], and we held that it was the duty of the court to instruct the jury as a matter of law that he was an accomplice and reversed for that reason. 1952In that case the circumstances shown by the testimony of the complaining witness brought the case squarely within the rule of People v. Robbins, 171 Cal. 466 [ 154 P. 317 ], and we held that it was the duty of the court to instruct the jury as a matter of law that he was an accomplice and reversed for that reason.	2	1946–1952
Ray v. Freeman green calctapp · 1940 2 sentences 1963Her action appears to have brought the case squarely within the rule laid down in Ray v. Freeman, 37 Cal.App.2d 656 [ 100 P.2d 332 ], wherein pursuant to the terms of the judgment the appellant accepted corporate stock thereby awarded to him and exercised dominion thereover. 1963Her action appears to have brought the case squarely within the rule laid down in Ray v. Freeman, 37 Cal.App.2d 656 [ 100 P.2d 332 ], wherein pursuant to the terms of the judgment the appellant accepted corporate stock thereby awarded to him and exercised dominion thereover.	1	1963–1963
Scavengers Protective Ass'n v. Serv-U-Garbage Co. green cal · 1933 2 sentences 1952The rule is thus stated: “There is no merit in this assertion (that the customer lists were not secret), since obviously it is not merely the knowledge of the identity of the customers, but the friendly contact with them which is important to the solicitors: ‘. . . they became personally acquainted with the customers of the respondent, their respective places of residence, their peculiar likes and fancies and other charaeteristcs, a knowledge of which would greatly aid them in securing and retaining the business of said former customers.' ” (Dairy Dale Co. v. Azevedo, 211 Cal. 344, 345 [ 295 P 1952The rule is thus stated: “There is no merit in this assertion (that the customer lists were not secret), since obviously it is not merely the knowledge of the identity of the customers, but the friendly contact with them which is important to the solicitors: ‘. . . they became personally acquainted with the customers of the respondent, their respective places of residence, their peculiar likes and fancies and other charaeteristcs, a knowledge of which would greatly aid them in securing and retaining the business of said former customers.' ” (Dairy Dale Co. v. Azevedo, 211 Cal. 344, 345 [ 295 P	1	1952–1952
Barham v. Widing green cal · 1930 2 sentences 1949This negligence was established as a question of fact by proof of (a), (b), and (c), under the principles of Barham v. Widing, 210 Cal. 206 [ 291 P. 173 ], and also by the inference of such negligence arising under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur as announced in Ybarra v. Spangard, 25 Cal.2d 486 [ 154 P.2d 687 , 162 A.L.R 1258]. ‘ ‘ The evidence which has been related puts the case squarely within the doctrine of Barham v. Widing, 210 Cal. 206 [ 291 P. 173 ]. 1949This negligence was established as a question of fact by proof of (a), (b), and (c), under the principles of Barham v. Widing, 210 Cal. 206 [ 291 P. 173 ], and also by the inference of such negligence arising under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur as announced in Ybarra v. Spangard, 25 Cal.2d 486 [ 154 P.2d 687 , 162 A.L.R 1258]. ‘ ‘ The evidence which has been related puts the case squarely within the doctrine of Barham v. Widing, 210 Cal. 206 [ 291 P. 173 ].	1	1949–1949
Ybarra v. Spangard green cal · 1944 2 sentences 1949This negligence was established as a question of fact by proof of (a), (b), and (c), under the principles of Barham v. Widing, 210 Cal. 206 [ 291 P. 173 ], and also by the inference of such negligence arising under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur as announced in Ybarra v. Spangard, 25 Cal.2d 486 [ 154 P.2d 687 , 162 A.L.R 1258]. ‘ ‘ The evidence which has been related puts the case squarely within the doctrine of Barham v. Widing, 210 Cal. 206 [ 291 P. 173 ]. 1949This negligence was established as a question of fact by proof of (a), (b), and (c), under the principles of Barham v. Widing, 210 Cal. 206 [ 291 P. 173 ], and also by the inference of such negligence arising under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur as announced in Ybarra v. Spangard, 25 Cal.2d 486 [ 154 P.2d 687 , 162 A.L.R 1258]. ‘ ‘ The evidence which has been related puts the case squarely within the doctrine of Barham v. Widing, 210 Cal. 206 [ 291 P. 173 ].	1	1949–1949
Realty Revenue Corp. v. Wilson neutral nysupct · 1944 2 sentences 1945This brings this case squarely within the rule announced in the case of Realty Revenue Corp. v. Wilson, 182 Misc. 552 [ 50 N.Y.S. 2d 941 ]. 1945This brings this case squarely within the rule announced in the case of Realty Revenue Corp. v. Wilson, 182 Misc. 552 [ 50 N.Y.S. 2d 941 ].	1	1945–1945
Gloria Ice Cream & Milk Co. v. Cowan green cal · 1935 1 sentence 1936This brings the case squarely within the rule recently announced by this court in Gloria Ice Cream & Milk Co. v. Cowan, 2 Cal. (2d) 460 [ 41 Pac. (2d) 340 ], and the authorities there cited.	1	1936–1936
Cochens v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America green calctapp · 1935 1 sentence 1935Co. of America, 4 Cal. App. (2d) 172 [ 40 Pac. (2d) 902 ], The language of the policy here in question relating to the waiver of premiums, while not identical with that of the policy involved in the case referred to, is precisely similar in effect, and brings this case squarely within the principle there laid down.	1	1935–1935
People v. Fuski green calctapp · 1920 2 sentences 1926(People v. Fuski, 49 Cal. App. 4 [ 192 Pac. 552 ].) The evidence brings the case squarely within this rule. 1926(People v. Fuski, 49 Cal. App. 4 [ 192 Pac. 552 ].) The evidence brings the case squarely within this rule.	1	1926–1926
Estate of Perkins green cal · 1925 2 sentences 1925This evidence brings this case squarely within the rule laid down in the cases of In re Redfield, 116 Cal. 637 780 [ 48 Pac. 794 ]; Estate of Chevallier, 159 Cal. 161 [ 113 Pac. 130 ]; Estate of Purcell, 164 Cal. 300 [ 128 Pac. 932 ]; Estate of Collins, 174 Cal. 663 [ 164 Pac. 1110 ]; Estate of Perkins, 195 Cal. 699 [ 235 Pac. 45 ]. 1925This evidence brings this case squarely within the rule laid down in the cases of In re Redfield, 116 Cal. 637 780 [ 48 Pac. 794 ]; Estate of Chevallier, 159 Cal. 161 [ 113 Pac. 130 ]; Estate of Purcell, 164 Cal. 300 [ 128 Pac. 932 ]; Estate of Collins, 174 Cal. 663 [ 164 Pac. 1110 ]; Estate of Perkins, 195 Cal. 699 [ 235 Pac. 45 ].	1	1925–1925
Collins v. Woodhams green cal · 1917 2 sentences 1925This evidence brings this case squarely within the rule laid down in the cases of In re Redfield, 116 Cal. 637 780 [ 48 Pac. 794 ]; Estate of Chevallier, 159 Cal. 161 [ 113 Pac. 130 ]; Estate of Purcell, 164 Cal. 300 [ 128 Pac. 932 ]; Estate of Collins, 174 Cal. 663 [ 164 Pac. 1110 ]; Estate of Perkins, 195 Cal. 699 [ 235 Pac. 45 ]. 1925This evidence brings this case squarely within the rule laid down in the cases of In re Redfield, 116 Cal. 637 780 [ 48 Pac. 794 ]; Estate of Chevallier, 159 Cal. 161 [ 113 Pac. 130 ]; Estate of Purcell, 164 Cal. 300 [ 128 Pac. 932 ]; Estate of Collins, 174 Cal. 663 [ 164 Pac. 1110 ]; Estate of Perkins, 195 Cal. 699 [ 235 Pac. 45 ].	1	1925–1925
Estate of Chevallier green · 1911 2 sentences 1925This evidence brings this case squarely within the rule laid down in the cases of In re Redfield, 116 Cal. 637 780 [ 48 Pac. 794 ]; Estate of Chevallier, 159 Cal. 161 [ 113 Pac. 130 ]; Estate of Purcell, 164 Cal. 300 [ 128 Pac. 932 ]; Estate of Collins, 174 Cal. 663 [ 164 Pac. 1110 ]; Estate of Perkins, 195 Cal. 699 [ 235 Pac. 45 ]. 1925This evidence brings this case squarely within the rule laid down in the cases of In re Redfield, 116 Cal. 637 780 [ 48 Pac. 794 ]; Estate of Chevallier, 159 Cal. 161 [ 113 Pac. 130 ]; Estate of Purcell, 164 Cal. 300 [ 128 Pac. 932 ]; Estate of Collins, 174 Cal. 663 [ 164 Pac. 1110 ]; Estate of Perkins, 195 Cal. 699 [ 235 Pac. 45 ].	1	1925–1925
In Re Estate of Purcell green cal · 1912 2 sentences 1925This evidence brings this case squarely within the rule laid down in the cases of In re Redfield, 116 Cal. 637 780 [ 48 Pac. 794 ]; Estate of Chevallier, 159 Cal. 161 [ 113 Pac. 130 ]; Estate of Purcell, 164 Cal. 300 [ 128 Pac. 932 ]; Estate of Collins, 174 Cal. 663 [ 164 Pac. 1110 ]; Estate of Perkins, 195 Cal. 699 [ 235 Pac. 45 ]. 1925This evidence brings this case squarely within the rule laid down in the cases of In re Redfield, 116 Cal. 637 780 [ 48 Pac. 794 ]; Estate of Chevallier, 159 Cal. 161 [ 113 Pac. 130 ]; Estate of Purcell, 164 Cal. 300 [ 128 Pac. 932 ]; Estate of Collins, 174 Cal. 663 [ 164 Pac. 1110 ]; Estate of Perkins, 195 Cal. 699 [ 235 Pac. 45 ].	1	1925–1925
Minneapolis Trust Co. v. Great Northern Railway Co. neutral minn · 1900 2 sentences 1909Co., 81 Minn. 28 , [ 83 N. W. 463 ]; Nichols v. Culver, 51 Conn. 177 ; Hubbard v. Brown, 8 Allen (90 Mass.) 590; Turner v. Wentworth, 119 Mass. 459 ; Farnham v. Richardson, 91 Me. 559 , [ 40 Atl. 553 ]; Cole v. Uhl, 46 Conn. 296 .) The facts found bring this case squarely within the rule above quoted. 1909Co., 81 Minn. 28 , [ 83 N. W. 463 ]; Nichols v. Culver, 51 Conn. 177 ; Hubbard v. Brown, 8 Allen (90 Mass.) 590; Turner v. Wentworth, 119 Mass. 459 ; Farnham v. Richardson, 91 Me. 559 , [ 40 Atl. 553 ]; Cole v. Uhl, 46 Conn. 296 .) The facts found bring this case squarely within the rule above quoted.	1	1909–1909
Turner v. Wentworth green mass · 1876 1 sentence 1909Co., 81 Minn. 28 , [ 83 N. W. 463 ]; Nichols v. Culver, 51 Conn. 177 ; Hubbard v. Brown, 8 Allen (90 Mass.) 590; Turner v. Wentworth, 119 Mass. 459 ; Farnham v. Richardson, 91 Me. 559 , [ 40 Atl. 553 ]; Cole v. Uhl, 46 Conn. 296 .) The facts found bring this case squarely within the rule above quoted.	1	1909–1909
Cole v. Uhl green conn · 1878 1 sentence 1909Co., 81 Minn. 28 , [ 83 N. W. 463 ]; Nichols v. Culver, 51 Conn. 177 ; Hubbard v. Brown, 8 Allen (90 Mass.) 590; Turner v. Wentworth, 119 Mass. 459 ; Farnham v. Richardson, 91 Me. 559 , [ 40 Atl. 553 ]; Cole v. Uhl, 46 Conn. 296 .) The facts found bring this case squarely within the rule above quoted.	1	1909–1909
Nichols v. Culver green conn · 1883 1 sentence 1909Co., 81 Minn. 28 , [ 83 N. W. 463 ]; Nichols v. Culver, 51 Conn. 177 ; Hubbard v. Brown, 8 Allen (90 Mass.) 590; Turner v. Wentworth, 119 Mass. 459 ; Farnham v. Richardson, 91 Me. 559 , [ 40 Atl. 553 ]; Cole v. Uhl, 46 Conn. 296 .) The facts found bring this case squarely within the rule above quoted.	1	1909–1909
Farnham v. Richardson green me · 1898 2 sentences 1909Co., 81 Minn. 28 , [ 83 N. W. 463 ]; Nichols v. Culver, 51 Conn. 177 ; Hubbard v. Brown, 8 Allen (90 Mass.) 590; Turner v. Wentworth, 119 Mass. 459 ; Farnham v. Richardson, 91 Me. 559 , [ 40 Atl. 553 ]; Cole v. Uhl, 46 Conn. 296 .) The facts found bring this case squarely within the rule above quoted. 1909Co., 81 Minn. 28 , [ 83 N. W. 463 ]; Nichols v. Culver, 51 Conn. 177 ; Hubbard v. Brown, 8 Allen (90 Mass.) 590; Turner v. Wentworth, 119 Mass. 459 ; Farnham v. Richardson, 91 Me. 559 , [ 40 Atl. 553 ]; Cole v. Uhl, 46 Conn. 296 .) The facts found bring this case squarely within the rule above quoted.	1	1909–1909

Where else courts name it

WA 15 (1894–1938) CA 15 (1909–1963) AR 12 (1906–1936) OK 12 (1908–1952) PA 8 (1892–2008) TX 7 (1915–1960) GA 7 (1945–1975) IA 7 (1888–1979) IN 6 (1897–2016) AL 6 (1909–1965) WI 6 (1900–1935) KS 5 (1906–1959) VA 4 (1951–2014) MO 4 (1906–1995) NE 4 (1905–1936) IL 3 (1909–2005) NM 3 (1911–1952) SD 3 (1922–1932) MN 3 (1905–1948) MI 3 (1914–1940) LA 3 (1929–1987) NC 3 (1928–1929) KY 2 (1936–1943) OR 2 (1964–1987) CT 2 (1983–1984) FL 2 (1977–1977)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check