15 California opinions name it 4 courts 1919–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Hendlergreen2 sentences1992Under that rule, the "discharge of liability by the [third party's] payment of the [first party's] indebtedness constitute[s] income to the [first party] and is to be treated as such." ( United States v. Hendler (1938) 303 U.S. 564, 566 [ 82 L.Ed. 1018, 1019-1020 , 58 S.Ct. 655 ]; accord, e.g., Diedrich v. Commissioner, supra, 457 U.S. at p. 195 [72 L.Ed.2d at pp. 781-782].) An illustration of this principle is found in Old Colony Trust Co. v. Comm'r Int. 1992Under that rule, the "discharge of liability by the [third party's] payment of the [first party's] indebtedness constitute[s] income to the [first party] and is to be treated as such." ( United States v. Hendler (1938) 303 U.S. 564, 566 [ 82 L.Ed. 1018, 1019-1020 , 58 S.Ct. 655 ]; accord, e.g., Diedrich v. Commissioner, supra, 457 U.S. at p. 195 [72 L.Ed.2d at pp. 781-782].) An illustration of this principle is found in Old Colony Trust Co. v. Comm'r Int. | 1 | 1 |
Diedrich v. Commissionergreen2 sentences1992Under that rule, the "discharge of liability by the [third party's] payment of the [first party's] indebtedness constitute[s] income to the [first party] and is to be treated as such." ( United States v. Hendler (1938) 303 U.S. 564, 566 [ 82 L.Ed. 1018, 1019-1020 , 58 S.Ct. 655 ]; accord, e.g., Diedrich v. Commissioner, supra, 457 U.S. at p. 195 [72 L.Ed.2d at pp. 781-782].) An illustration of this principle is found in Old Colony Trust Co. v. Comm'r Int. 1992Under that rule, the “discharge of liability by the [third party’s] payment of the [first party’s] indebtedness constitute^] income to the [first party] and is to be treated as such.” (United States v. Hendler (1938) 303 U.S. 564, 566 [ 82 L.Ed. 1018, 1019-1020 , 58 S.Ct. 655 ]; accord, e.g., Diedrich v. Commissioner, supra, 457 U.S. at p. 195 [72 L.Ed.2d at pp. 781-782].) An illustration of this principle is found in Old Colony Trust Co. v. Comm’r Int. | 1 | 1 |
Baldwin v. G. A. F. Seelig, Inc.green2 sentences1972Seelig, 294 U.S. 511, 526-527 [ 79 L.Ed. 1032, 1040 , 55 S.Ct. 497 , 101 A.L.R. 55 ]; see also E. 1972Seelig, 294 U.S. 511, 526-527 [ 79 L.Ed. 1032, 1040 , 55 S.Ct. 497 , 101 A.L.R. 55 ]; see also E. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Ruster
green
2 sentences2018Ruster (1976) 16 Cal.3d 690 , 129 Cal.Rptr. 153 , 548 P.2d 353 , overruled on a different point as stated in People v. Jenkins (1980) 28 Cal.3d 494 , 503-504, footnote 9, 170 Cal.Rptr. 1 , 620 P.2d 587 . 2018When determining whether the Williamson rule applies to a special statute, courts must look to its entire statutory context. “ ‘If it appears from the entire context that a violation of the “special” statute will necessarily or commonly result in a violation of the “general” statute, the Williamson rule may apply even though the elements of the general statute are not mirrored on the face of the special statute.’ ” (Murphy, supra, 52 Cal.4th at p. 87 .) An illustration of this principle is found in People v. Ruster (1976) 16 Cal.3d 690 , overruled on a different point as stated in People v. Je | 2 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Jenkins
green
2 sentences2018Ruster (1976) 16 Cal.3d 690 , 129 Cal.Rptr. 153 , 548 P.2d 353 , overruled on a different point as stated in People v. Jenkins (1980) 28 Cal.3d 494 , 503-504, footnote 9, 170 Cal.Rptr. 1 , 620 P.2d 587 . 2018When determining whether the Williamson rule applies to a special statute, courts must look to its entire statutory context. “ ‘If it appears from the entire context that a violation of the “special” statute will necessarily or commonly result in a violation of the “general” statute, the Williamson rule may apply even though the elements of the general statute are not mirrored on the face of the special statute.’ ” (Murphy, supra, 52 Cal.4th at p. 87 .) An illustration of this principle is found in People v. Ruster (1976) 16 Cal.3d 690 , overruled on a different point as stated in People v. Je | 2 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Murphy
green
2 sentences2018When determining whether the Williamson rule applies to a special statute, courts must look to its entire statutory context. " 'If it appears from the entire context that a violation of the "special" statute will necessarily or commonly result in a violation of the "general" statute, the Williamson rule may apply even though the elements of the general statute are not mirrored on the face of the special statute.' " ( Murphy , supra , 52 Cal.4th at p. 87 , 127 Cal.Rptr.3d 78 , 253 P.3d 1216 .) An illustration of this principle is found in People v . 2018When determining whether the Williamson rule applies to a special statute, courts must look to its entire statutory context. " 'If it appears from the entire context that a violation of the "special" statute will necessarily or commonly result in a violation of the "general" statute, the Williamson rule may apply even though the elements of the general statute are not mirrored on the face of the special statute.' " ( Murphy , supra , 52 Cal.4th at p. 87 , 127 Cal.Rptr.3d 78 , 253 P.3d 1216 .) An illustration of this principle is found in People v . | 2 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Descartes
green
2 sentences1957C has a remainder vested subject to open and let in other children born to B.' " (See also to the same import, Estate of Welch, 83 Cal.App.2d 391 [ 188 P.2d 797 ]; Estate of Newman, 68 Cal.App. 420 [ 229 P. 898 ]; Estate of Klein, 23 Cal.App.2d 708 [ 74 P.2d 79 ]; Estate of Riemer, 69 Cal.App.2d 634 [ 159 P.2d 677 ].) [3b] Estate of Cavarly, 119 Cal. 406 [ 51 P. 629 ], apparently is to the contrary on its assumption that a gift of a future interest to a class was dependent on survival but it misconstrued the authority cited therefor (see 40 Cal.L.Rev. 58- 59) and failed to apply a portion of t 1957C has a remainder vested subject to open and let in other children born to B.’” (See also to the same import, Estate of Welch, 83 Cal.App.2d 391 [ 188 P.2d 797 ]; Estate of Newman, 68 Cal.App. 420 [ 229 P. 898 ]; Estate of Klein, 23 Cal.App.2d 708 [ 74 P.2d 79 ]; Estate of Riemer, 69 Cal.App.2d 634 [ 159 P.2d 677 ].) Estate of Cavarly, 119 Cal. 406 [ 51 P. 629 ], apparently is to the contrary on its assumption that a gift of a future interest to a class was dependent on survival but it misconstrued the authority cited therefor (see 40 Cal. L.Rev. 58-59) and failed to apply a portion of the pro | 2 | 1957–1957 |
Gallian v. Riemer
green
2 sentences1957C has a remainder vested subject to open and let in other children born to B.’” (See also to the same import, Estate of Welch, 83 Cal.App.2d 391 [ 188 P.2d 797 ]; Estate of Newman, 68 Cal.App. 420 [ 229 P. 898 ]; Estate of Klein, 23 Cal.App.2d 708 [ 74 P.2d 79 ]; Estate of Riemer, 69 Cal.App.2d 634 [ 159 P.2d 677 ].) Estate of Cavarly, 119 Cal. 406 [ 51 P. 629 ], apparently is to the contrary on its assumption that a gift of a future interest to a class was dependent on survival but it misconstrued the authority cited therefor (see 40 Cal. L.Rev. 58-59) and failed to apply a portion of the pro 1957C has a remainder vested subject to open and let in other children born to B.’” (See also to the same import, Estate of Welch, 83 Cal.App.2d 391 [ 188 P.2d 797 ]; Estate of Newman, 68 Cal.App. 420 [ 229 P. 898 ]; Estate of Klein, 23 Cal.App.2d 708 [ 74 P.2d 79 ]; Estate of Riemer, 69 Cal.App.2d 634 [ 159 P.2d 677 ].) Estate of Cavarly, 119 Cal. 406 [ 51 P. 629 ], apparently is to the contrary on its assumption that a gift of a future interest to a class was dependent on survival but it misconstrued the authority cited therefor (see 40 Cal. L.Rev. 58-59) and failed to apply a portion of the pro | 2 | 1957–1957 |
Johnson v. Kishel
neutral
2 sentences1957C has a remainder vested subject to open and let in other children born to B.' " (See also to the same import, Estate of Welch, 83 Cal.App.2d 391 [ 188 P.2d 797 ]; Estate of Newman, 68 Cal.App. 420 [ 229 P. 898 ]; Estate of Klein, 23 Cal.App.2d 708 [ 74 P.2d 79 ]; Estate of Riemer, 69 Cal.App.2d 634 [ 159 P.2d 677 ].) [3b] Estate of Cavarly, 119 Cal. 406 [ 51 P. 629 ], apparently is to the contrary on its assumption that a gift of a future interest to a class was dependent on survival but it misconstrued the authority cited therefor (see 40 Cal.L.Rev. 58- 59) and failed to apply a portion of t 1957C has a remainder vested subject to open and let in other children born to B.’” (See also to the same import, Estate of Welch, 83 Cal.App.2d 391 [ 188 P.2d 797 ]; Estate of Newman, 68 Cal.App. 420 [ 229 P. 898 ]; Estate of Klein, 23 Cal.App.2d 708 [ 74 P.2d 79 ]; Estate of Riemer, 69 Cal.App.2d 634 [ 159 P.2d 677 ].) Estate of Cavarly, 119 Cal. 406 [ 51 P. 629 ], apparently is to the contrary on its assumption that a gift of a future interest to a class was dependent on survival but it misconstrued the authority cited therefor (see 40 Cal. L.Rev. 58-59) and failed to apply a portion of the pro | 2 | 1957–1957 |
Estate of Clark
green
2 sentences1957C has a remainder vested subject to open and let in other children born to B.’” (See also to the same import, Estate of Welch, 83 Cal.App.2d 391 [ 188 P.2d 797 ]; Estate of Newman, 68 Cal.App. 420 [ 229 P. 898 ]; Estate of Klein, 23 Cal.App.2d 708 [ 74 P.2d 79 ]; Estate of Riemer, 69 Cal.App.2d 634 [ 159 P.2d 677 ].) Estate of Cavarly, 119 Cal. 406 [ 51 P. 629 ], apparently is to the contrary on its assumption that a gift of a future interest to a class was dependent on survival but it misconstrued the authority cited therefor (see 40 Cal. L.Rev. 58-59) and failed to apply a portion of the pro 1957C has a remainder vested subject to open and let in other children born to B.’” (See also to the same import, Estate of Welch, 83 Cal.App.2d 391 [ 188 P.2d 797 ]; Estate of Newman, 68 Cal.App. 420 [ 229 P. 898 ]; Estate of Klein, 23 Cal.App.2d 708 [ 74 P.2d 79 ]; Estate of Riemer, 69 Cal.App.2d 634 [ 159 P.2d 677 ].) Estate of Cavarly, 119 Cal. 406 [ 51 P. 629 ], apparently is to the contrary on its assumption that a gift of a future interest to a class was dependent on survival but it misconstrued the authority cited therefor (see 40 Cal. L.Rev. 58-59) and failed to apply a portion of the pro | 2 | 1957–1957 |
Estate of Welch
green
2 sentences1957C has a remainder vested subject to open and let in other children born to B.' " (See also to the same import, Estate of Welch, 83 Cal.App.2d 391 [ 188 P.2d 797 ]; Estate of Newman, 68 Cal.App. 420 [ 229 P. 898 ]; Estate of Klein, 23 Cal.App.2d 708 [ 74 P.2d 79 ]; Estate of Riemer, 69 Cal.App.2d 634 [ 159 P.2d 677 ].) [3b] Estate of Cavarly, 119 Cal. 406 [ 51 P. 629 ], apparently is to the contrary on its assumption that a gift of a future interest to a class was dependent on survival but it misconstrued the authority cited therefor (see 40 Cal.L.Rev. 58- 59) and failed to apply a portion of t 1957C has a remainder vested subject to open and let in other children born to B.’” (See also to the same import, Estate of Welch, 83 Cal.App.2d 391 [ 188 P.2d 797 ]; Estate of Newman, 68 Cal.App. 420 [ 229 P. 898 ]; Estate of Klein, 23 Cal.App.2d 708 [ 74 P.2d 79 ]; Estate of Riemer, 69 Cal.App.2d 634 [ 159 P.2d 677 ].) Estate of Cavarly, 119 Cal. 406 [ 51 P. 629 ], apparently is to the contrary on its assumption that a gift of a future interest to a class was dependent on survival but it misconstrued the authority cited therefor (see 40 Cal. L.Rev. 58-59) and failed to apply a portion of the pro | 2 | 1957–1957 |
Klein Olsen v. Martin
neutral
2 sentences1957C has a remainder vested subject to open and let in other children born to B.’” (See also to the same import, Estate of Welch, 83 Cal.App.2d 391 [ 188 P.2d 797 ]; Estate of Newman, 68 Cal.App. 420 [ 229 P. 898 ]; Estate of Klein, 23 Cal.App.2d 708 [ 74 P.2d 79 ]; Estate of Riemer, 69 Cal.App.2d 634 [ 159 P.2d 677 ].) Estate of Cavarly, 119 Cal. 406 [ 51 P. 629 ], apparently is to the contrary on its assumption that a gift of a future interest to a class was dependent on survival but it misconstrued the authority cited therefor (see 40 Cal. L.Rev. 58-59) and failed to apply a portion of the pro 1957C has a remainder vested subject to open and let in other children born to B.’” (See also to the same import, Estate of Welch, 83 Cal.App.2d 391 [ 188 P.2d 797 ]; Estate of Newman, 68 Cal.App. 420 [ 229 P. 898 ]; Estate of Klein, 23 Cal.App.2d 708 [ 74 P.2d 79 ]; Estate of Riemer, 69 Cal.App.2d 634 [ 159 P.2d 677 ].) Estate of Cavarly, 119 Cal. 406 [ 51 P. 629 ], apparently is to the contrary on its assumption that a gift of a future interest to a class was dependent on survival but it misconstrued the authority cited therefor (see 40 Cal. L.Rev. 58-59) and failed to apply a portion of the pro | 2 | 1957–1957 |
In re Estate of Cavarly
green
2 sentences1957C has a remainder vested subject to open and let in other children born to B.' " (See also to the same import, Estate of Welch, 83 Cal.App.2d 391 [ 188 P.2d 797 ]; Estate of Newman, 68 Cal.App. 420 [ 229 P. 898 ]; Estate of Klein, 23 Cal.App.2d 708 [ 74 P.2d 79 ]; Estate of Riemer, 69 Cal.App.2d 634 [ 159 P.2d 677 ].) [3b] Estate of Cavarly, 119 Cal. 406 [ 51 P. 629 ], apparently is to the contrary on its assumption that a gift of a future interest to a class was dependent on survival but it misconstrued the authority cited therefor (see 40 Cal.L.Rev. 58- 59) and failed to apply a portion of t 1957C has a remainder vested subject to open and let in other children born to B.’” (See also to the same import, Estate of Welch, 83 Cal.App.2d 391 [ 188 P.2d 797 ]; Estate of Newman, 68 Cal.App. 420 [ 229 P. 898 ]; Estate of Klein, 23 Cal.App.2d 708 [ 74 P.2d 79 ]; Estate of Riemer, 69 Cal.App.2d 634 [ 159 P.2d 677 ].) Estate of Cavarly, 119 Cal. 406 [ 51 P. 629 ], apparently is to the contrary on its assumption that a gift of a future interest to a class was dependent on survival but it misconstrued the authority cited therefor (see 40 Cal. L.Rev. 58-59) and failed to apply a portion of the pro | 2 | 1957–1957 |
Bank of Italy v. Newman
green
2 sentences1957C has a remainder vested subject to open and let in other children born to B.’” (See also to the same import, Estate of Welch, 83 Cal.App.2d 391 [ 188 P.2d 797 ]; Estate of Newman, 68 Cal.App. 420 [ 229 P. 898 ]; Estate of Klein, 23 Cal.App.2d 708 [ 74 P.2d 79 ]; Estate of Riemer, 69 Cal.App.2d 634 [ 159 P.2d 677 ].) Estate of Cavarly, 119 Cal. 406 [ 51 P. 629 ], apparently is to the contrary on its assumption that a gift of a future interest to a class was dependent on survival but it misconstrued the authority cited therefor (see 40 Cal. L.Rev. 58-59) and failed to apply a portion of the pro 1957C has a remainder vested subject to open and let in other children born to B.’” (See also to the same import, Estate of Welch, 83 Cal.App.2d 391 [ 188 P.2d 797 ]; Estate of Newman, 68 Cal.App. 420 [ 229 P. 898 ]; Estate of Klein, 23 Cal.App.2d 708 [ 74 P.2d 79 ]; Estate of Riemer, 69 Cal.App.2d 634 [ 159 P.2d 677 ].) Estate of Cavarly, 119 Cal. 406 [ 51 P. 629 ], apparently is to the contrary on its assumption that a gift of a future interest to a class was dependent on survival but it misconstrued the authority cited therefor (see 40 Cal. L.Rev. 58-59) and failed to apply a portion of the pro | 2 | 1957–1957 |
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. First National Bank of Monrovia
green
2 sentences1998Bk. (1912) 18 Cal.App. 437 [ 123 P. 352 ] provides a classic illustration of the principle. 1998Bk. (1912) 18 Cal.App. 437 [ 123 P. 352 ] provides a classic illustration of the principle. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Old Colony Trust Co. v. Commissioner
green
2 sentences1992Rev. (1929) 279 U.S. 716 [ 73 L.Ed. 918 , 49 S.Ct. 499 ]. 1992Rev. (1929) 279 U.S. 716 [ 73 L.Ed. 918 , 49 S.Ct. 499 ]. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Morrison v. Townley
green
2 sentences1970Morrison v. Townley (1969) 269 Cal.App.2d 863 [ 75 Cal.Rptr. 274 ], is a case where defendant driver had been awake for from 21 to 22 hours without rest, had completed a full work day and had done considerable hazardous driving before attending a drive-in movie from which she was returning at the time of the accident. 1970Morrison v. Townley (1969) 269 Cal.App.2d 863 [ 75 Cal.Rptr. 274 ], is a case where defendant driver had been awake for from 21 to 22 hours without rest, had completed a full work day and had done considerable hazardous driving before attending a drive-in movie from which she was returning at the time of the accident. | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Brown v. Rudolph
green
2 sentences1957C has a remainder vested subject to open and let in other children born to B.’” (See also to the same import, Estate of Welch, 83 Cal.App.2d 391 [ 188 P.2d 797 ]; Estate of Newman, 68 Cal.App. 420 [ 229 P. 898 ]; Estate of Klein, 23 Cal.App.2d 708 [ 74 P.2d 79 ]; Estate of Riemer, 69 Cal.App.2d 634 [ 159 P.2d 677 ].) Estate of Cavarly, 119 Cal. 406 [ 51 P. 629 ], apparently is to the contrary on its assumption that a gift of a future interest to a class was dependent on survival but it misconstrued the authority cited therefor (see 40 Cal. L.Rev. 58-59) and failed to apply a portion of the pro 1957C has a remainder vested subject to open and let in other children born to B.’” (See also to the same import, Estate of Welch, 83 Cal.App.2d 391 [ 188 P.2d 797 ]; Estate of Newman, 68 Cal.App. 420 [ 229 P. 898 ]; Estate of Klein, 23 Cal.App.2d 708 [ 74 P.2d 79 ]; Estate of Riemer, 69 Cal.App.2d 634 [ 159 P.2d 677 ].) Estate of Cavarly, 119 Cal. 406 [ 51 P. 629 ], apparently is to the contrary on its assumption that a gift of a future interest to a class was dependent on survival but it misconstrued the authority cited therefor (see 40 Cal. L.Rev. 58-59) and failed to apply a portion of the pro | 1 | 1957–1957 |
In Re Estate of Blake
green
2 sentences1957C has a remainder vested subject to open and let in other children born to B.’” (See also to the same import, Estate of Welch, 83 Cal.App.2d 391 [ 188 P.2d 797 ]; Estate of Newman, 68 Cal.App. 420 [ 229 P. 898 ]; Estate of Klein, 23 Cal.App.2d 708 [ 74 P.2d 79 ]; Estate of Riemer, 69 Cal.App.2d 634 [ 159 P.2d 677 ].) Estate of Cavarly, 119 Cal. 406 [ 51 P. 629 ], apparently is to the contrary on its assumption that a gift of a future interest to a class was dependent on survival but it misconstrued the authority cited therefor (see 40 Cal. L.Rev. 58-59) and failed to apply a portion of the pro 1957C has a remainder vested subject to open and let in other children born to B.’” (See also to the same import, Estate of Welch, 83 Cal.App.2d 391 [ 188 P.2d 797 ]; Estate of Newman, 68 Cal.App. 420 [ 229 P. 898 ]; Estate of Klein, 23 Cal.App.2d 708 [ 74 P.2d 79 ]; Estate of Riemer, 69 Cal.App.2d 634 [ 159 P.2d 677 ].) Estate of Cavarly, 119 Cal. 406 [ 51 P. 629 ], apparently is to the contrary on its assumption that a gift of a future interest to a class was dependent on survival but it misconstrued the authority cited therefor (see 40 Cal. L.Rev. 58-59) and failed to apply a portion of the pro | 1 | 1957–1957 |
McDonough v. Goodcell
green
2 sentences1952In such a case the determination as to whether the board will act is purely administrative, and its discretion cannot be controlled by mandamus.” Interestingly enough, when it came to determining the act of an administrative officer in the initial application for a license, the court came to an opposite conclusion from that reached in the Drummey case involving the revoking of a license (McDonough v. Goodcell, 13 Cal.2d 741 [ 91 P.2d 1035 ]), and held that mandate cannot be used to control the discretion of an administrative officer unless an abuse of discretion is shown. *603 While originally 1952In such a case the determination as to whether the board will act is purely administrative, and its discretion cannot be controlled by mandamus.” Interestingly enough, when it came to determining the act of an administrative officer in the initial application for a license, the court came to an opposite conclusion from that reached in the Drummey case involving the revoking of a license (McDonough v. Goodcell, 13 Cal.2d 741 [ 91 P.2d 1035 ]), and held that mandate cannot be used to control the discretion of an administrative officer unless an abuse of discretion is shown. *603 While originally | 1 | 1952–1952 |
Kemp v. Enemark
green
2 sentences1940An illustration of this principle is found in Kemp v. Enemark, 194 Cal. 748 [ 230 Pac. 441 ], where the husband of plaintiff, by perpetrating a forgery, obtained a loan from a bank. 1940An illustration of this principle is found in Kemp v. Enemark, 194 Cal. 748 [ 230 Pac. 441 ], where the husband of plaintiff, by perpetrating a forgery, obtained a loan from a bank. | 1 | 1940–1940 |
People v. French
green
1 sentence1939As has been said very often, “The act of killing may follow the intent to kill as rapidly as follow the successive thoughts of the mind. ’ ’ (People v. French, 12 Cal. (2d) 720, 745 [ 87 Pac. (2d) 1014 ].) Usually the intent to kill precedes the act by an appreciable period of time, but we have in the present ease an illustration of the rule. | 1 | 1939–1939 |
Joint Highway District No. 9 v. Ocean Shore Railroad
green
2 sentences1933Co., 128 Cal. App. 743 [ 18 Pac. (2d) 413 ], seems to be an illustration of the exception. 1933Co., 128 Cal. App. 743 [ 18 Pac. (2d) 413 ], seems to be an illustration of the exception. | 1 | 1933–1933 |
Benson v. Bunting
green
1 sentence1927Rep. 571 ].)” Perry on Trusts and Trustees, sixth edition, volume 1, section 171, pages 268, 269, gives the situation here in an illustration of the doctrine as follows: “Thus, where one buys land at an execution sale, or sale under a trust deed, under an agreement with the debtor that the latter may redeem, the purchaser holds in trust; it would be a fraud to allow him to repudiate the contract, (a) Mere declarations and admissions of the party to be charged accompanying the transfer of title have been held sufficient to raise a trust.” Treating the transaction as one to redeem the property f | 1 | 1927–1927 |
O'bear-Nester Glass Co. v. Antiexplo Co.
green
2 sentences1924Antiexplo Co., 101 Texas 431 ( 108 S. W. 967 ), where an unpatented proprietary formula was transferred in exchange for stock. 1924Antiexplo Co., 101 Texas 431 ( 108 S. W. 967 ), where an unpatented proprietary formula was transferred in exchange for stock. | 1 | 1924–1924 |
Fleishhacker v. Moran
green
1 sentence1919In all cases where the owner is present he will be responsible for injuries sustained by third persons unless the operator disobeys instructions as the owner is in law in control of the vehicle.” We have an illustration of the principle in Crittenden v. Murphy, 36 Cal. App. 803 , [ 173 Pac. 595 ], wherein it is said: “The owner owes the duty to the traveling public to see to it that his car, when driven on the streets, with his permission and for the purposes for which the car was purchased, should be driven carefully and with due consideration to their rights; and the owner should not in good | 1 | 1919–1919 |
Crittenden v. Murphy
green
1 sentence1919In all cases where the owner is present he will be responsible for injuries sustained by third persons unless the operator disobeys instructions as the owner is in law in control of the vehicle.” We have an illustration of the principle in Crittenden v. Murphy, 36 Cal. App. 803 , [ 173 Pac. 595 ], wherein it is said: “The owner owes the duty to the traveling public to see to it that his car, when driven on the streets, with his permission and for the purposes for which the car was purchased, should be driven carefully and with due consideration to their rights; and the owner should not in good | 1 | 1919–1919 |
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.