sounder rule in California

2019Cir. 2002) 278 F.3d 1348, 1354 .) As we discuss, we believe the majority view is based on a sounder analysis.

2019Cir. 2002) 278 F.3d 1348 , 1354.) As we discuss, we believe the majority view is based on a sounder analysis.

1963However, the moving party cites and relies on the decision in Bodine v. Superior Court (1962) 209 Cal.App.2d 354 [ 26 Cal.Rptr. 260 ], decided after the entry of the decree herein involved.

1963However, the moving party cites and relies on the decision in Bodine v. Superior Court (1962) 209 Cal.App.2d 354 [ 26 Cal.Rptr. 260 ], decided after the entry of the decree herein involved.

2004Harris permits such a defendant to renegotiate a sentencing bargain that was honored by the court but not by the defendant, the very result that was correctly rejected in Zuniga . " ( Ibid. ) Burks and Zuniga state the sounder rule We conclude that Burks and Zuniga state the correct rule, consistent with law, logic, and sound public policy, and that Harris must be disapproved.

1966(Department of Public Works v. Bohne (1953) 415 Ill. 253 [ 113 N.E.2d 319, 324 ]; see also 1 Orgel, Valuation under Eminent Domain, § 121, p. 521, fn. at p. 525.) Although consideration of options to renew have been rejected by courts in some jurisdictions (op. cit., fn. p. 525), we accept as the sounder rule that they must be considered to the extent they enhance the value of the lease to be appraised.

1966(Department of Public Works v. Bohne (1953) 415 Ill. 253 [ 113 N.E.2d 319, 324 ]; see also 1 Orgel, Valuation under Eminent Domain, § 121, p. 521, fn. at p. 525.) Although consideration of options to renew have been rejected by courts in some jurisdictions (op. cit., fn. p. 525), we accept as the sounder rule that they must be considered to the extent they enhance the value of the lease to be appraised.

1963Por that reason, insofar as Berry v. Struble, supra, 20 Cal.App.2d 299 , holds that even apart from the applica- • tion of section 1542 the release cannot be avoided, it and the cases following it on this point are disapproved.

1963For that reason, insofar as Berry v. Struble, supra, 20 Cal. App.2d 299 , holds that even apart from the application of section 1542 the release cannot be avoided, it and the cases following it on this point are disapproved. [8] Under the majority rule, however, a release may not ipso facto be avoided upon the ground of later discovered injuries.

1951In the case of an official, his failure to act under such circumstances would, in addition, constitute serious malfeasance in office.” ( 99 F.2d 135, 140 .) While there is language in Prentice v. Bertken, supra, 50 Cal.App.2d 344 , which lends support to plaintiff’s position, such language is out of harmony with the majority view which establishes the sounder rule, and therefore that language must be disapproved.

1951In the case of an official, his failure to act under such circumstances would, in addition, constitute serious malfeasance in office." ( 99 F.2d 135, 140 .) While there is language in Prentice v. Bertken, supra, 50 Cal.App.2d 344 , which lends support to plaintiff's position, such language is out of harmony with the majority view which establishes the sounder rule, and therefore that language must be disapproved.

1951In the case of an official, his failure to act under such circumstances would, in addition, constitute serious malfeasance in office.” ( 99 F.2d 135, 140 .) While there is language in Prentice v. Bertken, supra, 50 Cal.App.2d 344 , which lends support to plaintiff’s position, such language is out of harmony with the majority view which establishes the sounder rule, and therefore that language must be disapproved.

1951In the case of an official, his failure to act under such circumstances would, in addition, constitute serious malfeasance in office." ( 99 F.2d 135, 140 .) While there is language in Prentice v. Bertken, supra, 50 Cal.App.2d 344 , which lends support to plaintiff's position, such language is out of harmony with the majority view which establishes the sounder rule, and therefore that language must be disapproved.

1949A sounder instruction is suggested by Benson v. Dean, 232 N.Y. 52 [ 133 N.E. 125, 127 ], in which the court said: “If under the circumstances a reasonably careful skillful general practitioner . . . would have suggested the calling into consultation of a . . . specialist, the defendant was negligent for failing to do so.” Such an instruction would clearly avoid the far reaching implications of the instruction now under review, and would not impose an unreasonable degree of skill upon the ordinary practitioner.

1949A sounder instruction is suggested by Benson v. Dean, 232 N.Y. 52 [ 133 N.E. 125, 127 ], in which the court said: “If under the circumstances a reasonably careful skillful general practitioner . . . would have suggested the calling into consultation of a . . . specialist, the defendant was negligent for failing to do so.” Such an instruction would clearly avoid the far reaching implications of the instruction now under review, and would not impose an unreasonable degree of skill upon the ordinary practitioner.

1949A sounder analysis is found in People v. Stovall, 94 Cal.App. 635 [ 271 P. 576 ] (approved in People v. Smith, 117 Cal.App. 530 [ 4 P.2d 268 ]), where the court observed that no issue as to separate or included offenses was raised by the appeal but, on the contrary, there was only a question concerning the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction.

1949A sounder analysis is found in People v. Stovall, 94 Cal.App. 635 [ 271 P. 576 ] (approved in People v. Smith, 117 Cal.App. 530 [ 4 P.2d 268 ]), where the court observed that no issue as to separate or included offenses was raised by the appeal but, on the contrary, there was only a question concerning the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction.

1949A sounder analysis is found in People v. Stovall, 94 Cal.App. 635 [ 271 P. 576 ] (approved in People v. Smith, 117 Cal.App. 530 [ 4 P.2d 268 ]), where the court observed that no issue as to separate or included offenses was raised by the appeal but, on the contrary, there was only a question concerning the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction.

1949A sounder analysis is found in People v. Stovall, 94 Cal.App. 635 [ 271 P. 576 ] (approved in People v. Smith, 117 Cal.App. 530 [ 4 P.2d 268 ]), where the court observed that no issue as to separate or included offenses was raised by the appeal but, on the contrary, there was only a question concerning the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction.

1943Not only is this permissible, but tends to simplicity and avoids the multiplicity of actions which otherwise would become necessary.” (Thomson v. Catalina, 205 Cal. 402 [ 271 P. 198 , 62 A.L.R. 236 ]; Evans v. Gibson, 220 Cal. 476 [ 31 P.2d 389 ].) The Davis case is a much later case and presents a sounder rule than Nightingale v. Scannell, 18 Cal. 315 , cited by appellant, which contains some language indicating that damages must be estimated according to the guilt of the least culpable.

1943Not only is this permissible, but tends to simplicity and avoids the multiplicity of actions which otherwise would become necessary.” (Thomson v. Catalina, 205 Cal. 402 [ 271 P. 198 , 62 A.L.R. 236 ]; Evans v. Gibson, 220 Cal. 476 [ 31 P.2d 389 ].) The Davis case is a much later case and presents a sounder rule than Nightingale v. Scannell, 18 Cal. 315 , cited by appellant, which contains some language indicating that damages must be estimated according to the guilt of the least culpable.

1943Not only is this permissible, but tends to simplicity and avoids the multiplicity of actions which otherwise would become necessary.” (Thomson v. Catalina, 205 Cal. 402 [ 271 P. 198 , 62 A.L.R. 236 ]; Evans v. Gibson, 220 Cal. 476 [ 31 P.2d 389 ].) The Davis case is a much later case and presents a sounder rule than Nightingale v. Scannell, 18 Cal. 315 , cited by appellant, which contains some language indicating that damages must be estimated according to the guilt of the least culpable.

1943Not only is this permissible, but tends to simplicity and avoids the multiplicity of actions which otherwise would become necessary.” (Thomson v. Catalina, 205 Cal. 402 [ 271 P. 198 , 62 A.L.R. 236 ]; Evans v. Gibson, 220 Cal. 476 [ 31 P.2d 389 ].) The Davis case is a much later case and presents a sounder rule than Nightingale v. Scannell, 18 Cal. 315 , cited by appellant, which contains some language indicating that damages must be estimated according to the guilt of the least culpable.

1943Not only is this permissible, but tends to simplicity and avoids the multiplicity of actions which otherwise would become necessary.” (Thomson v. Catalina, 205 Cal. 402 [ 271 P. 198 , 62 A.L.R. 236 ]; Evans v. Gibson, 220 Cal. 476 [ 31 P.2d 389 ].) The Davis case is a much later case and presents a sounder rule than Nightingale v. Scannell, 18 Cal. 315 , cited by appellant, which contains some language indicating that damages must be estimated according to the guilt of the least culpable.

1930Co., 238 N. Y. 246 [37 A. L.

1918The following authorities sustain this view: Bresee v. Los Angeles Traction Co., 149 Cal. 131 , [5 L.