almost universal rule in California

12 California opinions name it 2 courts 1939–2019 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 (9)

Case	Followed	Cited
City of Modesto v. Modesto Irrigation Districtgreen calctapp · 1973 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 2017–2019 2 sentences 2019The irrigation districts conceded the utility users' tax was a "valid exercise of a chartered city's power to tax for revenue purposes." ( Id. at p. 506, 110 Cal.Rptr. 111 .) But much like 368 the universities here, the irrigation districts argued "that they cannot be compelled to collect the city's tax because the ordinance, to the extent that it applies to them, impinges on the state's sovereignty over local entities; they assert that the collection requirement of the city ordinance is a regulation and that this regulation, if extended to state agencies, contravenes the almost universal rul 2019The irrigation districts conceded the utility users' tax was a "valid exercise of a chartered city's power to tax for revenue purposes." ( Id. at p. 506, 110 Cal.Rptr. 111 .) But much like 368 the universities here, the irrigation districts argued "that they cannot be compelled to collect the city's tax because the ordinance, to the extent that it applies to them, impinges on the state's sovereignty over local entities; they assert that the collection requirement of the city ordinance is a regulation and that this regulation, if extended to state agencies, contravenes the almost universal rul	1	2
Yolo v. Modesto Irrigation Districtgreen cal · 1932 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017 2 sentences 2017(Id. at pp. 505-506.) Although the districts conceded that the city had the power to impose the local tax on its residents, they claimed that they were not required to collect those taxes because if that power were “extended to state agencies, [it would] contravene[] the almost universal rule . . . that the activities of the state and its agencies cannot be controlled or regulated by local entities in the absence of legislative consent.” (Id. at p. 506.) The Court of Appeal first determined that the irrigation districts were not exempt from the city’s regulation because our state Supreme Court 2017(Id. at pp. 505-506.) Although the districts conceded that the city had the power to impose the local tax on its residents, they claimed that they were not required to collect those taxes because if that power were “extended to state agencies, [it would] contravene[] the almost universal rule . . . that the activities of the state and its agencies cannot be controlled or regulated by local entities in the absence of legislative consent.” {Id. at p. 506.) The Court of Appeal first determined that the irrigation districts were not exempt from the city’s regulation because our state Supreme Court	1	1
Rivera v. City of Fresnogreen cal · 1971 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017 2 sentences 2017(Id. at pp. 505-506.) Although the districts conceded that the city had the power to impose the local tax on its residents, they claimed that they were not required to collect those taxes because if that power were “extended to state agencies, [it would] contravene[] the almost universal rule . . . that the activities of the state and its agencies cannot be controlled or regulated by local entities in the absence of legislative consent.” (Id. at p. 506.) The Court of Appeal first determined that the irrigation districts were not exempt from the city’s regulation because our state Supreme Court 2017(Id. at pp. 505-506.) Although the districts conceded that the city had the power to impose the local tax on its residents, they claimed that they were not required to collect those taxes because if that power were “extended to state agencies, [it would] contravene[] the almost universal rule . . . that the activities of the state and its agencies cannot be controlled or regulated by local entities in the absence of legislative consent.” {Id. at p. 506.) The Court of Appeal first determined that the irrigation districts were not exempt from the city’s regulation because our state Supreme Court	1	1
Miller v. Lucasgreen calctapp · 1975 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012 2 sentences 2012This is the almost universal rule.’ ” {Rogers v. Hensley (1961) 194 Cal.App.2d 486, 490 [ 14 Cal.Rptr. 870 ], quoting Annot., Jurisdiction of state courts over actions involving patents (1947) 167 A.L.R. 1114 , 1118-1119.) Thus, in 1975 another Court of Appeal could summarize with scant fear of contradiction: “Patent matters primarily concerned with either consensual relations or tortious wrongdoing may be tried in state courts and where such a suit is brought, validity of a patent or its infringement may properly be considered by a state court. [Citation.] Jurisdiction of the state court foun 2012This is the almost universal rule.’ ” {Rogers v. Hensley (1961) 194 Cal.App.2d 486, 490 [ 14 Cal.Rptr. 870 ], quoting Annot., Jurisdiction of state courts over actions involving patents (1947) 167 A.L.R. 1114 , 1118-1119.) Thus, in 1975 another Court of Appeal could summarize with scant fear of contradiction: “Patent matters primarily concerned with either consensual relations or tortious wrongdoing may be tried in state courts and where such a suit is brought, validity of a patent or its infringement may properly be considered by a state court. [Citation.] Jurisdiction of the state court foun	1	1
Rogers v. Hensleygreen calctapp · 1961 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012 2 sentences 2012This is the almost universal rule.’ ” {Rogers v. Hensley (1961) 194 Cal.App.2d 486, 490 [ 14 Cal.Rptr. 870 ], quoting Annot., Jurisdiction of state courts over actions involving patents (1947) 167 A.L.R. 1114 , 1118-1119.) Thus, in 1975 another Court of Appeal could summarize with scant fear of contradiction: “Patent matters primarily concerned with either consensual relations or tortious wrongdoing may be tried in state courts and where such a suit is brought, validity of a patent or its infringement may properly be considered by a state court. [Citation.] Jurisdiction of the state court foun 2012This is the almost universal rule.’ ” {Rogers v. Hensley (1961) 194 Cal.App.2d 486, 490 [ 14 Cal.Rptr. 870 ], quoting Annot., Jurisdiction of state courts over actions involving patents (1947) 167 A.L.R. 1114 , 1118-1119.) Thus, in 1975 another Court of Appeal could summarize with scant fear of contradiction: “Patent matters primarily concerned with either consensual relations or tortious wrongdoing may be tried in state courts and where such a suit is brought, validity of a patent or its infringement may properly be considered by a state court. [Citation.] Jurisdiction of the state court foun	1	1
Winfree v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.green scotus · 1913 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1988–1988 2 sentences 1988They usually constitute a new factor in the affairs and relations of men and should not be held to affect what has happened unless, indeed, explicit words be used or by clear implication that construction be required.” ( 227 U.S. at p. 301 [ 57 L.Ed. at p. 520 ].) Because the 1908 amendment “introduced a new policy and quite radically changed the existing law,” the court emphasized that it was particularly the kind of statute that “should not be construed as retrospective.” (Id. at p. 302 [ 57 L.Ed. at p. 520 ].) As we have explained, precisely the same principle is applicable here. 1988They usually constitute a new factor in the affairs and relations of men and should not be held to affect what has happened unless, indeed, explicit words be used or by clear implication that construction be required.” ( 227 U.S. at p. 301 [ 57 L.Ed. at p. 520 ].) Because the 1908 amendment “introduced a new policy and quite radically changed the existing law,” the court emphasized that it was particularly the kind of statute that “should not be construed as retrospective.” (Id. at p. 302 [ 57 L.Ed. at p. 520 ].) As we have explained, precisely the same principle is applicable here.	1	1
Pendleton v. Fergusongreen cal · 1940 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1961–1961 2 sentences 1961(Pendleton v. Ferguson, 15 Cal.2d 319, 326 [101 P.2d 81, 688]; H. 1961(Pendleton v. Ferguson, 15 Cal.2d 319, 326 [101 P.2d 81, 688]; H.	1	1
Estate of Dupontgreen calctapp · 1943 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1951–1951 2 sentences 1951In Estate of Dupont, 60 Cal.App.2d 276, 288 [ 140 P.2d 866 ], the court said: “It is the almost universal rule in common law jurisdictions that ‘Where a person consults an attorney with a view to 772 employing him professionally, any information acquired by the attorney in the course of interviews or. negotiations looking toward such employment is privileged and cannot be disclosed, even though no actual employment of the attorney as such follows, and notwithstanding the attorney may be afterward employed by the adversary of the person who made such communication.’ (90 C.J. 406; 8 Wigmore on 1951In Estate of Dupont, 60 Cal.App.2d 276, 288 [ 140 P.2d 866 ], the court said: “It is the almost universal rule in common law jurisdictions that ‘Where a person consults an attorney with a view to 772 employing him professionally, any information acquired by the attorney in the course of interviews or. negotiations looking toward such employment is privileged and cannot be disclosed, even though no actual employment of the attorney as such follows, and notwithstanding the attorney may be afterward employed by the adversary of the person who made such communication.’ (90 C.J. 406; 8 Wigmore on	1	1
People v. Heartgreen · 1905 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1943–1943 1 sentence 1943They also rely on People v. Heart, 1 Cal.App. 166, 169 [ 81 P. 1918 ], It is the almost universal rule in common law jurisdictions that “Where a person consults an attorney with a view to employing him professionally, any information acquired by the attorney in the course of interviews or negotiations looking toward such employment is privileged and cannot be disclosed, even though no actual employment of the attorney as such follows, and notwithstanding the attorney may be afterward employed by the adversary of the person who made such communication.” (70 C.J. 406; 8 Wigmore on Evidence, 3d e	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 (12)

Case	Cited	Years
Ainsworth v. Bryant green cal · 1949 1 sentence 2019The court held, as an initial matter, that a collection requirement that affects a state agency in its *558 "proprietary" capacity does not impinge on state sovereignty. ( City of Modesto , supra , 34 Cal.App.3d at pp. 506-507, 110 Cal.Rptr. 111 .) 7 But the court then proceeded to "affirm the judgment for another reason." ( Id. at p. 508, 110 Cal.Rptr. 111 .) Recognizing that the city "has no practical nor economical means of collecting such a tax without the cooperation of the supplier of the utility service," the court concluded: "It is basic that the power to tax carries with it the coroll	1	2019–2019
Hall v. City of Taft green cal · 1956 1 sentence 1973(Hall v. City of Taft, 47 Cal.2d 111 [ 302 P.2d 574 ]; In re Means, 14 Cal.2d 254 [ 93 P.2d 105 ]; Davidson County v. Harmon, 200 Tenn. 575 [ 292 S.W.2d 777 ]; City of Charleston v. Southeastern Const. Co., 134 W.Va. 666 [ 64 S.E.2d 676 ].) Appellants’ contention runs counter to the doctrine of stare decisis.	1	1973–1973
Davidson County v. Harmon green tenn · 1956 2 sentences 1973(Hall v. City of Taft, 47 Cal.2d 111 [ 302 P.2d 574 ]; In re Means, 14 Cal.2d 254 [ 93 P.2d 105 ]; Davidson County v. Harmon, 200 Tenn. 575 [ 292 S.W.2d 777 ]; City of Charleston v. Southeastern Const. Co., 134 W.Va. 666 [ 64 S.E.2d 676 ].) Appellants’ contention runs counter to the doctrine of stare decisis. 1973(Hall v. City of Taft, 47 Cal.2d 111 [ 302 P.2d 574 ]; In re Means, 14 Cal.2d 254 [ 93 P.2d 105 ]; Davidson County v. Harmon, 200 Tenn. 575 [ 292 S.W.2d 777 ]; City of Charleston v. Southeastern Const. Co., 134 W.Va. 666 [ 64 S.E.2d 676 ].) Appellants’ contention runs counter to the doctrine of stare decisis.	1	1973–1973
City of Charleston v. Southeastern Construction Co. green wva · 1950 1 sentence 1973(Hall v. City of Taft, 47 Cal.2d 111 [ 302 P.2d 574 ]; In re Means, 14 Cal.2d 254 [ 93 P.2d 105 ]; Davidson County v. Harmon, 200 Tenn. 575 [ 292 S.W.2d 777 ]; City of Charleston v. Southeastern Const. Co., 134 W.Va. 666 [ 64 S.E.2d 676 ].) Appellants’ contention runs counter to the doctrine of stare decisis.	1	1973–1973
In Re Means green cal · 1939 2 sentences 1973(Hall v. City of Taft, 47 Cal.2d 111 [ 302 P.2d 574 ]; In re Means, 14 Cal.2d 254 [ 93 P.2d 105 ]; Davidson County v. Harmon, 200 Tenn. 575 [ 292 S.W.2d 777 ]; City of Charleston v. Southeastern Const. Co., 134 W.Va. 666 [ 64 S.E.2d 676 ].) Appellants’ contention runs counter to the doctrine of stare decisis. 1973(Hall v. City of Taft, 47 Cal.2d 111 [ 302 P.2d 574 ]; In re Means, 14 Cal.2d 254 [ 93 P.2d 105 ]; Davidson County v. Harmon, 200 Tenn. 575 [ 292 S.W.2d 777 ]; City of Charleston v. Southeastern Const. Co., 134 W.Va. 666 [ 64 S.E.2d 676 ].) Appellants’ contention runs counter to the doctrine of stare decisis.	1	1973–1973
City of Charleston v. Southeastern Const. Co. green wva · 1951 1 sentence 1973(Hall v. City of Taft, 47 Cal.2d 111 [ 302 P.2d 574 ]; In re Means, 14 Cal.2d 254 [ 93 P.2d 105 ]; Davidson County v. Harmon, 200 Tenn. 575 [ 292 S.W.2d 777 ]; City of Charleston v. Southeastern Const. Co., 134 W.Va. 666 [ 64 S.E.2d 676 ].) Appellants’ contention runs counter to the doctrine of stare decisis.	1	1973–1973
Belflower v. Blackshere green · 1955 1 sentence 1966A leading ease decided in 1955 by the Supreme Court of Oklahoma, Belflower v. Blackshere (Okla.) 281 P.2d 423 , reflects the application of this established rule in a situation very similar to the one at bench.	1	1966–1966
Orloff v. Los Angeles Turf Club, Inc. green cal · 1951 1 sentence 1961(See concurring opinion of Justices Spence and Edmonds, 36 Cal.2d at p. 743 .) Moreover, it appears to be the almost universal rule in the United States that in the absence of statute there exists no constitutional or common-law right of access to race tracks or other places of public amusement comparable to the right to accommodation at inns.	1	1961–1961
People v. Donovan neutral cal · 1872 2 sentences 1958It is well settled that “ [t]he value of the opinion evidence of a witness may be tested by showing that upon a former occasion he expressed a different opinion, or made statements inconsistent with the opinion expressed.” (27 Cal.Jur. 155, §128; 70 C.J. 1053, § 1239; 98 C.J.S. 555, § 581; San Diego Land Co. v. Neale, 88 Cal. 380 50, 67 [ 25 P. 977, 11 L.E.A. 604] ; People v. Donovan, 43 Cal. 162, 165-166 .) It is the almost universal rule “ [t]hat expert opinions, as well as other opinions ordinarily admissible, if inconsistent with those expressed on the stand, are receivable.” (3 Wigmore, 1958*Nevertheless, we think the former testimony of the witness related to a valuation date sufficiently proximate to that of the instant case that the jury should have been permitted to consider whether the opinions were consistent and reconcilable in the light of such reasons and explanations as the witness might have given (cf. People v. Donovan, supra, 43 Cal. 162, 166 ).	1	1958–1958
San Diego Land & Town Co. v. Neale green · 1891 1 sentence 1958It is well settled that “ [t]he value of the opinion evidence of a witness may be tested by showing that upon a former occasion he expressed a different opinion, or made statements inconsistent with the opinion expressed.” (27 Cal.Jur. 155, §128; 70 C.J. 1053, § 1239; 98 C.J.S. 555, § 581; San Diego Land Co. v. Neale, 88 Cal. *380 50, 67 [ 25 P. 977, 11 L.E.A. 604] ; People v. Donovan, 43 Cal. 162, 165-166 .) It is the almost universal rule “ [t]hat expert opinions, as well as other opinions ordinarily admissible, if inconsistent with those expressed on the stand, are receivable.” (3 Wigmore,	1	1958–1958
Denver Tramway Co. v. Owens neutral colo · 1894 1 sentence 1943They also rely on People v. Heart, 1 Cal.App. 166, 169 [ 81 P. 1918 ], It is the almost universal rule in common law jurisdictions that “Where a person consults an attorney with a view to employing him professionally, any information acquired by the attorney in the course of interviews or negotiations looking toward such employment is privileged and cannot be disclosed, even though no actual employment of the attorney as such follows, and notwithstanding the attorney may be afterward employed by the adversary of the person who made such communication.” (70 C.J. 406; 8 Wigmore on Evidence, 3d e	1	1943–1943
Bush v. Southern Pacific Co. green calctapp · 1930 2 sentences 1939Co., 106 Cal. App. 101 [ 289 Pac. 190 ], the better and almost universal rule is that a railroad company will not be held free from negligence even though it may have complied literally with various safety statutes, for neither the legislature nor the railroad commission can foresee in advance what would, under all circumstances, constitute ordinary care. 1939Co., 106 Cal. App. 101 [ 289 Pac. 190 ], the better and almost universal rule is that a railroad company will not be held free from negligence even though it may have complied literally with various safety statutes, for neither the legislature nor the railroad commission can foresee in advance what would, under all circumstances, constitute ordinary care.	1	1939–1939

Where else courts name it

FL 19 (1938–2026) KY 17 (1927–2020) IA 15 (1874–2015) AZ 15 (1920–2025) WY 14 (1941–2012) CA 12 (1939–2019) ID 11 (1915–1999) WA 10 (1896–2022) WV 9 (1978–2020) GA 9 (1906–1977) NC 9 (1892–2006) NY 9 (1900–1973) NE 9 (1929–2021) MN 8 (1967–2015) IL 8 (1905–1984) OH 8 (1894–2015) TN 7 (1909–2020) MS 7 (1909–1978) OK 6 (1919–1997) IN 6 (1929–1972) CT 5 (1897–2001) NM 5 (1940–1970) SC 5 (1897–2004) NJ 5 (1952–1961) PA 5 (1867–2002) MD 4 (1944–2015) OR 4 (1972–1997) MO 4 (1913–1949) DE 4 (1952–2001) SD 4 (1942–2022) AR 4 (1894–2012) KS 4 (1939–2015) AL 3 (1915–1971) NH 3 (1908–2005) TX 3 (1960–2026) WI 2 (1893–1974) HI 2 (1927–1939) CO 2 (1964–1974) AK 2 (1964–2000) MT 2 (1949–1952) MA 2 (1990–2000)

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