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.
13 California opinions name it 2 courts 1920–2021 2 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. Lance W.green2 sentences1991(In re Lance W. (1985) 37 Cal.3d 873, 886-887 [ 210 Cal.Rptr. 631 , 694 P.2d 744 ].) Neither the cases cited nor the principle enunciated aids them since here the period of tenancy was for a month and the tenants had made at least partial payment on the rent. 1991(In re Lance W. (1985) 37 Cal.3d 873, 886-887 [ 210 Cal.Rptr. 631 , 694 P.2d 744 ].) Neither the cases cited nor the principle enunciated aids them since here the period of tenancy was for a month and the tenants had made at least partial payment on the rent. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Carusogreen2 sentences1972(People v. Caruso (1959) 174 Cal.App.2d 624, 636 [ 345 P.2d 282 ].) In People v. Kirk (1950) 98 Cal.App.2d 687 , at page 692 [ 220 P.2d 976 ], the court stated: “A trial judge is not required to accept as true the sworn testimony of a witness, even in the absence of evidence contradicting it, and this rule applies to an affidavit.” (See People v. Parker (1961) 196 Cal.App.2d 704 [ 16 Cal.Rptr. 718 ]; People v. Beck (1961) 188 Cal.App.2d 549 [ 10 Cal.Rptr. 396 ]; People v. Perry (1963) 220 Cal.App.2d 841 [ 34 Cal.Rptr. 110 ]; People v. Knight (1951) 106 Cal.App.2d 312 [ 234 P.2d 992 ].) An exam 1972(People v. Caruso (1959) 174 Cal.App.2d 624, 636 [ 345 P.2d 282 ].) In People v. Kirk (1950) 98 Cal.App.2d 687 , at page 692 [ 220 P.2d 976 ], the court stated: “A trial judge is not required to accept as true the sworn testimony of a witness, even in the absence of evidence contradicting it, and this rule applies to an affidavit.” (See People v. Parker (1961) 196 Cal.App.2d 704 [ 16 Cal.Rptr. 718 ]; People v. Beck (1961) 188 Cal.App.2d 549 [ 10 Cal.Rptr. 396 ]; People v. Perry (1963) 220 Cal.App.2d 841 [ 34 Cal.Rptr. 110 ]; People v. Knight (1951) 106 Cal.App.2d 312 [ 234 P.2d 992 ].) An exam | 1 | 1 |
Guerra v. Handlery Hotels, Inc.green2 sentences1960(See Guerra v. Handlery Hotels, Inc., supra, 53 Cal.2d 266, 272 [ 1 Cal.Rptr. 330 , 347 P.2d 674 ].) Defendants offered and the court gave BAJI 201-A 8 and 201-C. 9 Plaintiff asserts it was error to give 201-A in its *311 entirety and 201-0 for the reason that the language of the combined instructions embodied the provisions of section 562 of the Vehicle Code pertaining to a pedestrian crossing a roadway at a point other than within a marked crosswalk. 1960(See Guerra v. Handlery Hotels, Inc., supra, 53 Cal.2d 266, 272 [ 1 Cal.Rptr. 330 , 347 P.2d 674 ].) Defendants offered and the court gave BAJI 201-A 8 and 201-C. 9 Plaintiff asserts it was error to give 201-A in its *311 entirety and 201-0 for the reason that the language of the combined instructions embodied the provisions of section 562 of the Vehicle Code pertaining to a pedestrian crossing a roadway at a point other than within a marked crosswalk. | 1 | 1 |
Moore v. Beltgreen2 sentences1950The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is, therefore, entirely inapplicable and no malpractice has been proved.” And in Moore v. Belt (1949), 34 Cal.2d 525, 530-531 [ 212 P.2d 509 ], after citing some fourteen cases on the proposition, it was stated that “In the cases cited where the doctrine was held applicable evidence that the defendant did not cause the injury was remote and it followed as a matter of common knowledge from the nature of the injury that the result would not happen without carelessness or negligence. 1950The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is, therefore, entirely inapplicable and no malpractice has been proved.” And in Moore v. Belt (1949), 34 Cal.2d 525, 530-531 [ 212 P.2d 509 ], after citing some fourteen cases on the proposition, it was stated that “In the cases cited where the doctrine was held applicable evidence that the defendant did not cause the injury was remote and it followed as a matter of common knowledge from the nature of the injury that the result would not happen without carelessness or negligence. | 1 | 1 |
Sinz v. Owensgreen2 sentences1949(Sinz v. Owens, 33 Cal.2d 749, 753 [ 205 P.2d 3 ]; Engelking v. Carlson, 13 Cal.2d 216, 221 [ 88 P.2d 695 ] and cases cited; Church v. Bloch, 80 Cal.App.2d 542, 548-549 [ 182 P.2d 241 ]; Rising v. Veatch, 117 Cal.App. 404, 408 [ 3 P.2d 1023 ]; Donahoo v. Lovas, 105 Cal.App. 705, 709 [ 288 P. 698 ].) In the cases cited where the doctrine was held applicable evidence that the defendant did not cause the injury was remote and it followed as a matter of common knowledge from the nature of the injury that the result would not happen without carelessness or negligence. 1949(Sinz v. Owens, 33 Cal.2d 749, 753 [ 205 P.2d 3 ]; Engelking v. Carlson, 13 Cal.2d 216, 221 [ 88 P.2d 695 ] and cases cited; Church v. Bloch, 80 Cal.App.2d 542, 548-549 [ 182 P.2d 241 ]; Rising v. Veatch, 117 Cal.App. 404, 408 [ 3 P.2d 1023 ]; Donahoo v. Lovas, 105 Cal.App. 705, 709 [ 288 P. 698 ].) In the cases cited where the doctrine was held applicable evidence that the defendant did not cause the injury was remote and it followed as a matter of common knowledge from the nature of the injury that the result would not happen without carelessness or negligence. | 1 | 1 |
Church v. Blochgreen2 sentences1949(Sinz v. Owens, 33 Cal.2d 749, 753 [ 205 P.2d 3 ]; Engelking v. Carlson, 13 Cal.2d 216, 221 [ 88 P.2d 695 ] and cases cited; Church v. Bloch, 80 Cal.App.2d 542, 548-549 [ 182 P.2d 241 ]; Rising v. Veatch, 117 Cal.App. 404, 408 [ 3 P.2d 1023 ]; Donahoo v. Lovas, 105 Cal.App. 705, 709 [ 288 P. 698 ].) In the cases cited where the doctrine was held applicable evidence that the defendant did not cause the injury was remote and it followed as a matter of common knowledge from the nature of the injury that the result would not happen without carelessness or negligence. 1949(Sinz v. Owens, 33 Cal.2d 749, 753 [ 205 P.2d 3 ]; Engelking v. Carlson, 13 Cal.2d 216, 221 [ 88 P.2d 695 ] and cases cited; Church v. Bloch, 80 Cal.App.2d 542, 548-549 [ 182 P.2d 241 ]; Rising v. Veatch, 117 Cal.App. 404, 408 [ 3 P.2d 1023 ]; Donahoo v. Lovas, 105 Cal.App. 705, 709 [ 288 P. 698 ].) In the cases cited where the doctrine was held applicable evidence that the defendant did not cause the injury was remote and it followed as a matter of common knowledge from the nature of the injury that the result would not happen without carelessness or negligence. | 1 | 1 |
Engelking v. Carlsongreen2 sentences1949(Sinz v. Owens, 33 Cal.2d 749, 753 [ 205 P.2d 3 ]; Engelking v. Carlson, 13 Cal.2d 216, 221 [ 88 P.2d 695 ] and cases cited; Church v. Bloch, 80 Cal.App.2d 542, 548-549 [ 182 P.2d 241 ]; Rising v. Veatch, 117 Cal.App. 404, 408 [ 3 P.2d 1023 ]; Donahoo v. Lovas, 105 Cal.App. 705, 709 [ 288 P. 698 ].) In the cases cited where the doctrine was held applicable evidence that the defendant did not cause the injury was remote and it followed as a matter of common knowledge from the nature of the injury that the result would not happen without carelessness or negligence. 1949(Sinz v. Owens, 33 Cal.2d 749, 753 [ 205 P.2d 3 ]; Engelking v. Carlson, 13 Cal.2d 216, 221 [ 88 P.2d 695 ] and cases cited; Church v. Bloch, 80 Cal.App.2d 542, 548-549 [ 182 P.2d 241 ]; Rising v. Veatch, 117 Cal.App. 404, 408 [ 3 P.2d 1023 ]; Donahoo v. Lovas, 105 Cal.App. 705, 709 [ 288 P. 698 ].) In the cases cited where the doctrine was held applicable evidence that the defendant did not cause the injury was remote and it followed as a matter of common knowledge from the nature of the injury that the result would not happen without carelessness or negligence. | 1 | 1 |
Rising v. Veatchgreen2 sentences1949(Sinz v. Owens, 33 Cal.2d 749, 753 [ 205 P.2d 3 ]; Engelking v. Carlson, 13 Cal.2d 216, 221 [ 88 P.2d 695 ] and cases cited; Church v. Bloch, 80 Cal.App.2d 542, 548-549 [ 182 P.2d 241 ]; Rising v. Veatch, 117 Cal.App. 404, 408 [ 3 P.2d 1023 ]; Donahoo v. Lovas, 105 Cal.App. 705, 709 [ 288 P. 698 ].) In the cases cited where the doctrine was held applicable evidence that the defendant did not cause the injury was remote and it followed as a matter of common knowledge from the nature of the injury that the result would not happen without carelessness or negligence. 1949(Sinz v. Owens, 33 Cal.2d 749, 753 [ 205 P.2d 3 ]; Engelking v. Carlson, 13 Cal.2d 216, 221 [ 88 P.2d 695 ] and cases cited; Church v. Bloch, 80 Cal.App.2d 542, 548-549 [ 182 P.2d 241 ]; Rising v. Veatch, 117 Cal.App. 404, 408 [ 3 P.2d 1023 ]; Donahoo v. Lovas, 105 Cal.App. 705, 709 [ 288 P. 698 ].) In the cases cited where the doctrine was held applicable evidence that the defendant did not cause the injury was remote and it followed as a matter of common knowledge from the nature of the injury that the result would not happen without carelessness or negligence. | 1 | 1 |
Donahoo v. Lovasgreen2 sentences1949(Sinz v. Owens, 33 Cal.2d 749, 753 [ 205 P.2d 3 ]; Engelking v. Carlson, 13 Cal.2d 216, 221 [ 88 P.2d 695 ] and cases cited; Church v. Bloch, 80 Cal.App.2d 542, 548-549 [ 182 P.2d 241 ]; Rising v. Veatch, 117 Cal.App. 404, 408 [ 3 P.2d 1023 ]; Donahoo v. Lovas, 105 Cal.App. 705, 709 [ 288 P. 698 ].) In the cases cited where the doctrine was held applicable evidence that the defendant did not cause the injury was remote and it followed as a matter of common knowledge from the nature of the injury that the result would not happen without carelessness or negligence. 1949(Sinz v. Owens, 33 Cal.2d 749, 753 [ 205 P.2d 3 ]; Engelking v. Carlson, 13 Cal.2d 216, 221 [ 88 P.2d 695 ] and cases cited; Church v. Bloch, 80 Cal.App.2d 542, 548-549 [ 182 P.2d 241 ]; Rising v. Veatch, 117 Cal.App. 404, 408 [ 3 P.2d 1023 ]; Donahoo v. Lovas, 105 Cal.App. 705, 709 [ 288 P. 698 ].) In the cases cited where the doctrine was held applicable evidence that the defendant did not cause the injury was remote and it followed as a matter of common knowledge from the nature of the injury that the result would not happen without carelessness or negligence. | 1 | 1 |
County of Tulare v. City of Dinubagreen2 sentences1932R. 1172, 192 Pac. 442, 447 ], it said: ‘In this connection it may be stated that there has been a tendency to a much more liberal construction of such statutes in the more recent decisions, and this may in part be the result of more humane and liberal methods of dealing with those who are convicted of crime, and in part from the wide field now covered by the criminal law’; and again in County of Tulare v. City of Dinuba, 188 Cal. 664, 677 [ 206 Pac. 983, 988 ], when it said ‘A statute cannot be held void for uncertainty if any reasonable and practical construction can be given to its language. 1932R. 1172, 192 Pac. 442, 447 ], it said: ‘In this connection it may be stated that there has been a tendency to a much more liberal construction of such statutes in the more recent decisions, and this may in part be the result of more humane and liberal methods of dealing with those who are convicted of crime, and in part from the wide field now covered by the criminal law’; and again in County of Tulare v. City of Dinuba, 188 Cal. 664, 677 [ 206 Pac. 983, 988 ], when it said ‘A statute cannot be held void for uncertainty if any reasonable and practical construction can be given to its language. | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte Danielsgreen2 sentences1932The rule of all the cases cited is the rule of strict construction, a rule which our Supreme Court had in mind when in Ex parte Daniels, 183 Cal. 636, 646 [21 A. L. 1932R. 1172, 192 Pac. 442, 447 ], it said: ‘In this connection it may be stated that there has been a tendency to a much more liberal construction of such statutes in the more recent decisions, and this may in part be the result of more humane and liberal methods of dealing with those who are convicted of crime, and in part from the wide field now covered by the criminal law’; and again in County of Tulare v. City of Dinuba, 188 Cal. 664, 677 [ 206 Pac. 983, 988 ], when it said ‘A statute cannot be held void for uncertainty if any reasonable and practical construction can be given to its language. | 1 | 1 |
| Calmon v. Sarraillegreen | 1 | 1 |
The Edward Barron Estate Co. v. the Woodruff Co.green1 sentence1928(Calmon v. Sarraille, 142 Cal. 638, 641 [ 76 Pac. 486 ]; Barron Estate Co. v. Woodruff Co., 163 Cal. 561, 576 [42 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 |
|---|---|---|
Coy v. Iowa
green
2 sentences2021And I don’t think counsel would disagree there were a lot of times where the pause was pushing a minute or maybe more than a minute.” After making additional observations about the victim’s conduct that are consistent with those evidenced by the record that we have already set forth, the trial court continued: “As far as my findings, this witness of course is not a child witness like the witnesses were [in the cases cited by the defense:] Coy [v. Iowa (1988) 487 U.S. 1012 (Coy)] and Maryland versus [ [Craig (1990) 497 U.S. 836 (Craig)] and [People v.] Sharp [(1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1772 (Sharp)] 2021And I don’t think counsel would disagree there were a lot of times where the pause was pushing a minute or maybe more than a minute.” After making additional observations about the victim’s conduct that are consistent with those evidenced by the record that we have already set forth, the trial court continued: “As far as my findings, this witness of course is not a child witness like the witnesses were [in the cases cited by the defense:] Coy [v. Iowa (1988) 487 U.S. 1012 (Coy)] and Maryland versus [ [Craig (1990) 497 U.S. 836 (Craig)] and [People v.] Sharp [(1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1772 (Sharp)] | 2 | 2021–2021 |
Maryland v. Craig
green
2 sentences2021And I don’t think counsel would disagree there were a lot of times where the pause was pushing a minute or maybe more than a minute.” After making additional observations about the victim’s conduct that are consistent with those evidenced by the record that we have already set forth, the trial court continued: “As far as my findings, this witness of course is not a child witness like the witnesses were [in the cases cited by the defense:] Coy [v. Iowa (1988) 487 U.S. 1012 (Coy)] and Maryland versus [ [Craig (1990) 497 U.S. 836 (Craig)] and [People v.] Sharp [(1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1772 (Sharp)] 2021And I don’t think counsel would disagree there were a lot of times where the pause was pushing a minute or maybe more than a minute.” After making additional observations about the victim’s conduct that are consistent with those evidenced by the record that we have already set forth, the trial court continued: “As far as my findings, this witness of course is not a child witness like the witnesses were [in the cases cited by the defense:] Coy [v. Iowa (1988) 487 U.S. 1012 (Coy)] and Maryland versus [ [Craig (1990) 497 U.S. 836 (Craig)] and [People v.] Sharp [(1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1772 (Sharp)] | 2 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Sharp
green
2 sentences2021And I don’t think counsel would disagree there were a lot of times where the pause was pushing a minute or maybe more than a minute.” After making additional observations about the victim’s conduct that are consistent with those evidenced by the record that we have already set forth, the trial court continued: “As far as my findings, this witness of course is not a child witness like the witnesses were [in the cases cited by the defense:] Coy [v. Iowa (1988) 487 U.S. 1012 (Coy)] and Maryland versus [ [Craig (1990) 497 U.S. 836 (Craig)] and [People v.] Sharp [(1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1772 (Sharp)] 2021And I don’t think counsel would disagree there were a lot of times where the pause was pushing a minute or maybe more than a minute.” After making additional observations about the victim’s conduct that are consistent with those evidenced by the record that we have already set forth, the trial court continued: “As far as my findings, this witness of course is not a child witness like the witnesses were [in the cases cited by the defense:] Coy [v. Iowa (1988) 487 U.S. 1012 (Coy)] and Maryland versus [ [Craig (1990) 497 U.S. 836 (Craig)] and [People v.] Sharp [(1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1772 (Sharp)] | 2 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Gonzales
green
2 sentences2021And I don’t think counsel would disagree there were a lot of times where the pause was pushing a minute or maybe more than a minute.” After making additional observations about the victim’s conduct that are consistent with those evidenced by the record that we have already set forth, the trial court continued: “As far as my findings, this witness of course is not a child witness like the witnesses were [in the cases cited by the defense:] Coy [v. Iowa (1988) 487 U.S. 1012 (Coy)] and Maryland versus [ [Craig (1990) 497 U.S. 836 (Craig)] and [People v.] Sharp [(1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1772 (Sharp)] 2021And I don’t think counsel would disagree there were a lot of times where the pause was pushing a minute or maybe more than a minute.” After making additional observations about the victim’s conduct that are consistent with those evidenced by the record that we have already set forth, the trial court continued: “As far as my findings, this witness of course is not a child witness like the witnesses were [in the cases cited by the defense:] Coy [v. Iowa (1988) 487 U.S. 1012 (Coy)] and Maryland versus [ [Craig (1990) 497 U.S. 836 (Craig)] and [People v.] Sharp [(1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1772 (Sharp)] | 2 | 2021–2021 |
United States v. Echeverri, Elkin A.
green
1 sentence1994(U.S. v. LeMaux (9th Cir. 1993) 994 F.2d 684, 689 ; U.S. v. Pungitore (3d Cir. 1990) 910 F.2d 1084 , 1136; U.S. v. Hernandez-Escarsega (9th Cir. 1989) 886 F.2d 1560, 1572-1573 ; U.S. v. Echeverri (3d Cir. 1988) 854 F.2d 638, 642-643 .) However, only Echeverri clearly held that unanimity was required on the three predicate offenses which constitute a continuing criminal enterprise under federal law. (854 F.2d at pp. 642-643.) In the other cases cited by defense counsel, the reviewing courts did not find it necessary to decide the issue because they found the failure to instruct harmless or beca | 1 | 1994–1994 |
United States v. Donaciano Hernandez-Escarsega
green
1 sentence1994(U.S. v. LeMaux (9th Cir. 1993) 994 F.2d 684, 689 ; U.S. v. Pungitore (3d Cir. 1990) 910 F.2d 1084 , 1136; U.S. v. Hernandez-Escarsega (9th Cir. 1989) 886 F.2d 1560, 1572-1573 ; U.S. v. Echeverri (3d Cir. 1988) 854 F.2d 638, 642-643 .) However, only Echeverri clearly held that unanimity was required on the three predicate offenses which constitute a continuing criminal enterprise under federal law. (854 F.2d at pp. 642-643.) In the other cases cited by defense counsel, the reviewing courts did not find it necessary to decide the issue because they found the failure to instruct harmless or beca | 1 | 1994–1994 |
cluster 546225
green
1 sentence1994(U.S. v. LeMaux (9th Cir. 1993) 994 F.2d 684, 689 ; U.S. v. Pungitore (3d Cir. 1990) 910 F.2d 1084 , 1136; U.S. v. Hernandez-Escarsega (9th Cir. 1989) 886 F.2d 1560, 1572-1573 ; U.S. v. Echeverri (3d Cir. 1988) 854 F.2d 638, 642-643 .) However, only Echeverri clearly held that unanimity was required on the three predicate offenses which constitute a continuing criminal enterprise under federal law. (854 F.2d at pp. 642-643.) In the other cases cited by defense counsel, the reviewing courts did not find it necessary to decide the issue because they found the failure to instruct harmless or beca | 1 | 1994–1994 |
United States v. Kimbel A. Lemaux
green
1 sentence1994(U.S. v. LeMaux (9th Cir. 1993) 994 F.2d 684, 689 ; U.S. v. Pungitore (3d Cir. 1990) 910 F.2d 1084 , 1136; U.S. v. Hernandez-Escarsega (9th Cir. 1989) 886 F.2d 1560, 1572-1573 ; U.S. v. Echeverri (3d Cir. 1988) 854 F.2d 638, 642-643 .) However, only Echeverri clearly held that unanimity was required on the three predicate offenses which constitute a continuing criminal enterprise under federal law. (854 F.2d at pp. 642-643.) In the other cases cited by defense counsel, the reviewing courts did not find it necessary to decide the issue because they found the failure to instruct harmless or beca | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Clanebach, Inc. v. Las Vegas Local Joint Executive Board of Culinary Workers and Bartenders, Etc.
green
1 sentence1985Wkrs and Bartenders (9th Cir. 1968) 388 F.2d 766 [whether a contract requires company to negotiate wage rates for certain classes of employees is arbitrable], Maj. opn. ante, at pp. 413, 414.) The cases cited for the rule that “employee-oriented” or “partisan” arbitration agreements are enforceable simply do not bear the weight which the majority place on them. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
People v. Wallace
green
2 sentences1984Both People v. Wallace (1963) 59 Cal.2d 548 [ 30 Cal.Rptr. 449 , 381 P.2d 185 ]) and People v. Bradford (1963) 212 Cal.App.2d 403 [ 28 Cal.Rptr. 115 ], concerned the trial court’s failing or refusing to exercise its discretion when the issues were properly before the trial court. 1984Both People v. Wallace (1963) 59 Cal.2d 548 [ 30 Cal.Rptr. 449 , 381 P.2d 185 ]) and People v. Bradford (1963) 212 Cal.App.2d 403 [ 28 Cal.Rptr. 115 ], concerned the trial court’s failing or refusing to exercise its discretion when the issues were properly before the trial court. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
People v. Bradford
green
1 sentence1984Both People v. Wallace (1963) 59 Cal.2d 548 [ 30 Cal.Rptr. 449 , 381 P.2d 185 ]) and People v. Bradford (1963) 212 Cal.App.2d 403 [ 28 Cal.Rptr. 115 ], concerned the trial court’s failing or refusing to exercise its discretion when the issues were properly before the trial court. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
People v. Knight
green
2 sentences1972(People v. Caruso (1959) 174 Cal.App.2d 624, 636 [ 345 P.2d 282 ].) In People v. Kirk (1950) 98 Cal.App.2d 687 , at page 692 [ 220 P.2d 976 ], the court stated: “A trial judge is not required to accept as true the sworn testimony of a witness, even in the absence of evidence contradicting it, and this rule applies to an affidavit.” (See People v. Parker (1961) 196 Cal.App.2d 704 [ 16 Cal.Rptr. 718 ]; People v. Beck (1961) 188 Cal.App.2d 549 [ 10 Cal.Rptr. 396 ]; People v. Perry (1963) 220 Cal.App.2d 841 [ 34 Cal.Rptr. 110 ]; People v. Knight (1951) 106 Cal.App.2d 312 [ 234 P.2d 992 ].) An exam 1972(People v. Caruso (1959) 174 Cal.App.2d 624, 636 [ 345 P.2d 282 ].) In People v. Kirk (1950) 98 Cal.App.2d 687 , at page 692 [ 220 P.2d 976 ], the court stated: “A trial judge is not required to accept as true the sworn testimony of a witness, even in the absence of evidence contradicting it, and this rule applies to an affidavit.” (See People v. Parker (1961) 196 Cal.App.2d 704 [ 16 Cal.Rptr. 718 ]; People v. Beck (1961) 188 Cal.App.2d 549 [ 10 Cal.Rptr. 396 ]; People v. Perry (1963) 220 Cal.App.2d 841 [ 34 Cal.Rptr. 110 ]; People v. Knight (1951) 106 Cal.App.2d 312 [ 234 P.2d 992 ].) An exam | 1 | 1972–1972 |
People v. Kirk
green
2 sentences1972(People v. Caruso (1959) 174 Cal.App.2d 624, 636 [ 345 P.2d 282 ].) In People v. Kirk (1950) 98 Cal.App.2d 687 , at page 692 [ 220 P.2d 976 ], the court stated: “A trial judge is not required to accept as true the sworn testimony of a witness, even in the absence of evidence contradicting it, and this rule applies to an affidavit.” (See People v. Parker (1961) 196 Cal.App.2d 704 [ 16 Cal.Rptr. 718 ]; People v. Beck (1961) 188 Cal.App.2d 549 [ 10 Cal.Rptr. 396 ]; People v. Perry (1963) 220 Cal.App.2d 841 [ 34 Cal.Rptr. 110 ]; People v. Knight (1951) 106 Cal.App.2d 312 [ 234 P.2d 992 ].) An exam 1972(People v. Caruso (1959) 174 Cal.App.2d 624, 636 [ 345 P.2d 282 ].) In People v. Kirk (1950) 98 Cal.App.2d 687 , at page 692 [ 220 P.2d 976 ], the court stated: “A trial judge is not required to accept as true the sworn testimony of a witness, even in the absence of evidence contradicting it, and this rule applies to an affidavit.” (See People v. Parker (1961) 196 Cal.App.2d 704 [ 16 Cal.Rptr. 718 ]; People v. Beck (1961) 188 Cal.App.2d 549 [ 10 Cal.Rptr. 396 ]; People v. Perry (1963) 220 Cal.App.2d 841 [ 34 Cal.Rptr. 110 ]; People v. Knight (1951) 106 Cal.App.2d 312 [ 234 P.2d 992 ].) An exam | 1 | 1972–1972 |
People v. Parker
green
2 sentences1972(People v. Caruso (1959) 174 Cal.App.2d 624, 636 [ 345 P.2d 282 ].) In People v. Kirk (1950) 98 Cal.App.2d 687 , at page 692 [ 220 P.2d 976 ], the court stated: “A trial judge is not required to accept as true the sworn testimony of a witness, even in the absence of evidence contradicting it, and this rule applies to an affidavit.” (See People v. Parker (1961) 196 Cal.App.2d 704 [ 16 Cal.Rptr. 718 ]; People v. Beck (1961) 188 Cal.App.2d 549 [ 10 Cal.Rptr. 396 ]; People v. Perry (1963) 220 Cal.App.2d 841 [ 34 Cal.Rptr. 110 ]; People v. Knight (1951) 106 Cal.App.2d 312 [ 234 P.2d 992 ].) An exam 1972(People v. Caruso (1959) 174 Cal.App.2d 624, 636 [ 345 P.2d 282 ].) In People v. Kirk (1950) 98 Cal.App.2d 687 , at page 692 [ 220 P.2d 976 ], the court stated: “A trial judge is not required to accept as true the sworn testimony of a witness, even in the absence of evidence contradicting it, and this rule applies to an affidavit.” (See People v. Parker (1961) 196 Cal.App.2d 704 [ 16 Cal.Rptr. 718 ]; People v. Beck (1961) 188 Cal.App.2d 549 [ 10 Cal.Rptr. 396 ]; People v. Perry (1963) 220 Cal.App.2d 841 [ 34 Cal.Rptr. 110 ]; People v. Knight (1951) 106 Cal.App.2d 312 [ 234 P.2d 992 ].) An exam | 1 | 1972–1972 |
People v. Perry
green
2 sentences1972(People v. Caruso (1959) 174 Cal.App.2d 624, 636 [ 345 P.2d 282 ].) In People v. Kirk (1950) 98 Cal.App.2d 687 , at page 692 [ 220 P.2d 976 ], the court stated: “A trial judge is not required to accept as true the sworn testimony of a witness, even in the absence of evidence contradicting it, and this rule applies to an affidavit.” (See People v. Parker (1961) 196 Cal.App.2d 704 [ 16 Cal.Rptr. 718 ]; People v. Beck (1961) 188 Cal.App.2d 549 [ 10 Cal.Rptr. 396 ]; People v. Perry (1963) 220 Cal.App.2d 841 [ 34 Cal.Rptr. 110 ]; People v. Knight (1951) 106 Cal.App.2d 312 [ 234 P.2d 992 ].) An exam 1972(People v. Caruso (1959) 174 Cal.App.2d 624, 636 [ 345 P.2d 282 ].) In People v. Kirk (1950) 98 Cal.App.2d 687 , at page 692 [ 220 P.2d 976 ], the court stated: “A trial judge is not required to accept as true the sworn testimony of a witness, even in the absence of evidence contradicting it, and this rule applies to an affidavit.” (See People v. Parker (1961) 196 Cal.App.2d 704 [ 16 Cal.Rptr. 718 ]; People v. Beck (1961) 188 Cal.App.2d 549 [ 10 Cal.Rptr. 396 ]; People v. Perry (1963) 220 Cal.App.2d 841 [ 34 Cal.Rptr. 110 ]; People v. Knight (1951) 106 Cal.App.2d 312 [ 234 P.2d 992 ].) An exam | 1 | 1972–1972 |
People v. Beck
green
2 sentences1972(People v. Caruso (1959) 174 Cal.App.2d 624, 636 [ 345 P.2d 282 ].) In People v. Kirk (1950) 98 Cal.App.2d 687 , at page 692 [ 220 P.2d 976 ], the court stated: “A trial judge is not required to accept as true the sworn testimony of a witness, even in the absence of evidence contradicting it, and this rule applies to an affidavit.” (See People v. Parker (1961) 196 Cal.App.2d 704 [ 16 Cal.Rptr. 718 ]; People v. Beck (1961) 188 Cal.App.2d 549 [ 10 Cal.Rptr. 396 ]; People v. Perry (1963) 220 Cal.App.2d 841 [ 34 Cal.Rptr. 110 ]; People v. Knight (1951) 106 Cal.App.2d 312 [ 234 P.2d 992 ].) An exam 1972(People v. Caruso (1959) 174 Cal.App.2d 624, 636 [ 345 P.2d 282 ].) In People v. Kirk (1950) 98 Cal.App.2d 687 , at page 692 [ 220 P.2d 976 ], the court stated: “A trial judge is not required to accept as true the sworn testimony of a witness, even in the absence of evidence contradicting it, and this rule applies to an affidavit.” (See People v. Parker (1961) 196 Cal.App.2d 704 [ 16 Cal.Rptr. 718 ]; People v. Beck (1961) 188 Cal.App.2d 549 [ 10 Cal.Rptr. 396 ]; People v. Perry (1963) 220 Cal.App.2d 841 [ 34 Cal.Rptr. 110 ]; People v. Knight (1951) 106 Cal.App.2d 312 [ 234 P.2d 992 ].) An exam | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Barham v. Widing
green
2 sentences1949The majority opinion, in an endeavor to escape the holdings in Barham v. Widing, 210 Cal. 206 [ 291 P. 173 ], and other eases cited in connection therewith, has this to say: “In the cases cited where the doctrine was held applicable evidence that the defendant did not cause the injury was remote and it followed as a matter of common knowledge from the nature of the injury that the result would not happen without carelessness or negligence. 1949The majority opinion, in an endeavor to escape the holdings in Barham v. Widing, 210 Cal. 206 [ 291 P. 173 ], and other eases cited in connection therewith, has this to say: “In the cases cited where the doctrine was held applicable evidence that the defendant did not cause the injury was remote and it followed as a matter of common knowledge from the nature of the injury that the result would not happen without carelessness or negligence. | 1 | 1949–1949 |
| Sheer v. Hoyt neutral | 1 | 1928–1928 |
| Johnson v. Withers neutral | 1 | 1928–1928 |
Herdan v. Hanson
green
2 sentences1928(Johnson v. Withers, 9 Cal. App. 52 [ 98 Pac. 42 ]; Sheer v. Hoyt, 13 Cal. App. 662 [ 110 Pac. 477 ]; Herdan v. Hanson, 182 Cal. 538 [ 189 Pac. 440 ].) As the plaintiffs had been the authorized agents of the vendors since October 10th, that fact is of particular importance as bringing this case within the doctrine of the cases cited. 1928(Johnson v. Withers, 9 Cal. App. 52 [ 98 Pac. 42 ]; Sheer v. Hoyt, 13 Cal. App. 662 [ 110 Pac. 477 ]; Herdan v. Hanson, 182 Cal. 538 [ 189 Pac. 440 ].) As the plaintiffs had been the authorized agents of the vendors since October 10th, that fact is of particular importance as bringing this case within the doctrine of the cases cited. | 1 | 1928–1928 |
| Lundy Furniture Co. v. White green | 1 | 1920–1920 |
| Liver v. Mills green | 1 | 1920–1920 |
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.