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.
10 California opinions name it 2 courts 1936–1993 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 |
|---|---|---|
Arundel v. Turkgreen2 sentences1946Appellant next earnestly urges that the decedent was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law because he failed to propel his bicycle close to the right edge of the roadway, but was riding at or near the center line of the highway in violation of section 525(a) of the Vehicle Code, which section at the time of the happening of this accident read: “Upon all roadways of sufficient width a vehicle shall be driven upon the right half of, and as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of, such roadway. ...” In the case of Arundel v. Turk, 6 Cal.App.2d 162, 164, 165 [ 44 P.2d 1946Appellant next earnestly urges that the decedent was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law because he failed to propel his bicycle close to the right edge of the roadway, but was riding at or near the center line of the highway in violation of section 525(a) of the Vehicle Code, which section at the time of the happening of this accident read: “Upon all roadways of sufficient width a vehicle shall be driven upon the right half of, and as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of, such roadway. ...” In the case of Arundel v. Turk, 6 Cal.App.2d 162, 164, 165 [ 44 P.2d | 1 | 2 |
People v. Brannongreen2 sentences1982(People v. Brannon (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 971, 974 [ 108 Cal.Rptr. 620 ].) To accomplish this end, section 13353 has dual objectives: “(1) to secure chemical tests for determining whether or not a person was intoxicated while driving a motor vehicle to allow introduction of such evidence into court; and (2) to provide an administrative penalty for those drivers who refuse to comply. ” (People v. Fite, supra, 267 Cal.App.2d at p. 691 .) Logic dictates that the recent amendment to the statute would serve to further promote this ultimate purpose on these objectives. 1982(People v. Brannon (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 971, 974 [ 108 Cal.Rptr. 620 ].) To accomplish this end, section 13353 has dual objectives: “(1) to secure chemical tests for determining whether or not a person was intoxicated while driving a motor vehicle to allow introduction of such evidence into court; and (2) to provide an administrative penalty for those drivers who refuse to comply. ” (People v. Fite, supra, 267 Cal.App.2d at p. 691 .) Logic dictates that the recent amendment to the statute would serve to further promote this ultimate purpose on these objectives. | 1 | 1 |
Oettinger v. Stewartgreen2 sentences1961The evidence in the case was not only sharply conflicting, but from the verdict of the jury it is impossible to determine whether their verdict was based on a finding that the driver of the truck was not negligent or on a finding that while the driver of the truck was guilty of negligence, appellants were guilty of contributory negligence because of the undue burden of care placed upon them by this erroneous instruction. [4] Where it seems probable that the jury's verdict may have been based on the erroneous instruction prejudice appears and this court "should not speculate upon the basis of t 1961The evidence in the case was not only sharply conflicting, but from the verdict of the jury it is impossible to determine whether their verdict was based on a finding that the driver of the truck was not negligent or on a finding that while the driver of the truck was guilty of negligence, appellants were guilty of contributory negligence because of the undue burden of care placed upon them by this erroneous instruction. [4] Where it seems probable that the jury's verdict may have been based on the erroneous instruction prejudice appears and this court "should not speculate upon the basis of t | 1 | 1 |
Miller v. Petersgreen2 sentences1961The evidence in the case was not only sharply conflicting, but from the verdict of the jury it is impossible to determine whether their verdict was based on a finding that the driver of the truck was not negligent or on a finding that while the driver of the truck was guilty of negligence, appellants were guilty of contributory negligence because of the undue burden of care placed upon them by this erroneous instruction. [4] Where it seems probable that the jury's verdict may have been based on the erroneous instruction prejudice appears and this court "should not speculate upon the basis of t 1961The evidence in the case was not only sharply conflicting, but from the verdict of the jury it is impossible to determine whether their verdict was based on a finding that the driver of the truck was not negligent or on a finding that while the driver of the truck was guilty of negligence, appellants were guilty of contributory negligence because of the undue burden of care placed upon them by this erroneous instruction. [4] Where it seems probable that the jury's verdict may have been based on the erroneous instruction prejudice appears and this court "should not speculate upon the basis of t | 1 | 1 |
Marchetti v. Southern Pacific Co.green2 sentences1961Co., 204 Cal. 679, 682 [ 269 P. 529 ].) [1b] The quoted instruction in placing on appellants this unjustified burden of observing traffic on the highway and warning the driver thereof was clearly erroneous. [3a] We are satisfied that in this case this error must be held prejudicial. 1961Co., 204 Cal. 679, 682 [ 269 P. 529 ].) [1b] The quoted instruction in placing on appellants this unjustified burden of observing traffic on the highway and warning the driver thereof was clearly erroneous. [3a] We are satisfied that in this case this error must be held prejudicial. | 1 | 1 |
Rath v. Bankstongreen2 sentences1948“Thus in Rath v. Bankston [ 101 Cal.App. 274, 281 ( 281 P. 1081 )], supra, where an automobile was parked partly on the highway in violation of the statute, the defendant was allowed to show that, despite reasonably careful inspection, the gasoline supply became exhausted and the car stalled. 1948“Thus in Rath v. Bankston [ 101 Cal.App. 274, 281 ( 281 P. 1081 )], supra, where an automobile was parked partly on the highway in violation of the statute, the defendant was allowed to show that, despite reasonably careful inspection, the gasoline supply became exhausted and the car stalled. | 1 | 1 |
Polk v. Weinsteingreen2 sentences1946In disposing of this contention the court said: “We believe, and we have been cited no *307 authority to the contrary, that the section in question was enacted for the benefit of motorists traveling in the same direction.” To the same effect see Polk v. Weinstein, 12 Cal.App.2d 360, 363 [ 55 P.2d 588 ]; Matsuda v. Luond, 52 Cal.App.2d 453, 459 [126 P.2d 359]; Mathers v. County of Riverside, 22 Cal.2d 781, 784 [ 141 P.2d 419 ], and cases therein cited. 1946In disposing of this contention the court said: “We believe, and we have been cited no *307 authority to the contrary, that the section in question was enacted for the benefit of motorists traveling in the same direction.” To the same effect see Polk v. Weinstein, 12 Cal.App.2d 360, 363 [ 55 P.2d 588 ]; Matsuda v. Luond, 52 Cal.App.2d 453, 459 [126 P.2d 359]; Mathers v. County of Riverside, 22 Cal.2d 781, 784 [ 141 P.2d 419 ], and cases therein cited. | 1 | 1 |
Mathers v. County of Riversidegreen2 sentences1946In disposing of this contention the court said: “We believe, and we have been cited no *307 authority to the contrary, that the section in question was enacted for the benefit of motorists traveling in the same direction.” To the same effect see Polk v. Weinstein, 12 Cal.App.2d 360, 363 [ 55 P.2d 588 ]; Matsuda v. Luond, 52 Cal.App.2d 453, 459 [126 P.2d 359]; Mathers v. County of Riverside, 22 Cal.2d 781, 784 [ 141 P.2d 419 ], and cases therein cited. 1946In disposing of this contention the court said: “We believe, and we have been cited no *307 authority to the contrary, that the section in question was enacted for the benefit of motorists traveling in the same direction.” To the same effect see Polk v. Weinstein, 12 Cal.App.2d 360, 363 [ 55 P.2d 588 ]; Matsuda v. Luond, 52 Cal.App.2d 453, 459 [126 P.2d 359]; Mathers v. County of Riverside, 22 Cal.2d 781, 784 [ 141 P.2d 419 ], and cases therein cited. | 1 | 1 |
Matsuda v. Luondgreen2 sentences1946In disposing of this contention the court said: “We believe, and we have been cited no *307 authority to the contrary, that the section in question was enacted for the benefit of motorists traveling in the same direction.” To the same effect see Polk v. Weinstein, 12 Cal.App.2d 360, 363 [ 55 P.2d 588 ]; Matsuda v. Luond, 52 Cal.App.2d 453, 459 [126 P.2d 359]; Mathers v. County of Riverside, 22 Cal.2d 781, 784 [ 141 P.2d 419 ], and cases therein cited. 1946In disposing of this contention the court said: “We believe, and we have been cited no *307 authority to the contrary, that the section in question was enacted for the benefit of motorists traveling in the same direction.” To the same effect see Polk v. Weinstein, 12 Cal.App.2d 360, 363 [ 55 P.2d 588 ]; Matsuda v. Luond, 52 Cal.App.2d 453, 459 [126 P.2d 359]; Mathers v. County of Riverside, 22 Cal.2d 781, 784 [ 141 P.2d 419 ], and cases therein cited. | 1 | 1 |
Inai v. Edegreen2 sentences1944(Inai v. Ede, 59 Cal.App. 2d 549, 555 [ 139 P.2d 76 ]; see, also, opinion on prior appeal, 42 Cal.App. 2d 521, 526-527 [ 109 P.2d 400 ]; cf. Fennessey v. Pacific Gas & Elec. 1944(Inai v. Ede, 59 Cal.App. 2d 549, 555 [ 139 P.2d 76 ]; see, also, opinion on prior appeal, 42 Cal.App. 2d 521, 526-527 [ 109 P.2d 400 ]; cf. Fennessey v. Pacific Gas & Elec. | 1 | 1 |
Inai v. Edegreen2 sentences1944(Inai v. Ede, 59 Cal.App. 2d 549, 555 [ 139 P.2d 76 ]; see, also, opinion on prior appeal, 42 Cal.App. 2d 521, 526-527 [ 109 P.2d 400 ]; cf. Fennessey v. Pacific Gas & Elec. 1944(Inai v. Ede, 59 Cal.App. 2d 549, 555 [ 139 P.2d 76 ]; see, also, opinion on prior appeal, 42 Cal.App. 2d 521, 526-527 [ 109 P.2d 400 ]; cf. Fennessey v. Pacific Gas & Elec. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Klein v. Leatherman
green
1 sentence1993The Court of Appeal recognized that one *668 truck on the highway tends to be like any other and “[i]t is difficult to discern wherein classification of the operation on the highway as a privilege under franchise, or as a right under a permit, changes the degree of protection required.” ( 270 Cal.App.2d at p. 795 .) Klein v. Leatherman appears to be the first and only reported opinion in California applying the rule of section 428 of the Restatement of Torts to a nonfranchised highway contract carrier. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
People v. Fite
green
1 sentence1982(People v. Brannon (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 971, 974 [ 108 Cal.Rptr. 620 ].) To accomplish this end, section 13353 has dual objectives: “(1) to secure chemical tests for determining whether or not a person was intoxicated while driving a motor vehicle to allow introduction of such evidence into court; and (2) to provide an administrative penalty for those drivers who refuse to comply. ” (People v. Fite, supra, 267 Cal.App.2d at p. 691 .) Logic dictates that the recent amendment to the statute would serve to further promote this ultimate purpose on these objectives. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Pandell v. Hischier
green
1 sentence1973Right-of-way rules have been described as simply establishing “a practical basis for necessary courtesy on the highway.” (Pandell v. Hischier, supra, 166 Cal.App.2d 693, 696 .) The implications of appellants’ instruction are inconsistent with this notion. | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Thomson v. Bayless
green
2 sentences1961In Thomson v. Bayless (1944), 24 Cal.2d 543 [ 150 P.2d 413 ], the court stated: “It has recently been held that whether or not parking on the highway in violation of section 582 of the Vehicle Code constitutes a proximate cause of the accident where the driver of the car in motion might also have been negligent, is a question of fact for the jury if reasonable men can differ thereon.” (Pp. 548-549.) This rule would also apply to a violation of section 588, subdivision (a) (now § 22502). 1961In Thomson v. Bayless (1944), 24 Cal.2d 543 [ 150 P.2d 413 ], the court stated: “It has recently been held that whether or not parking on the highway in violation of section 582 of the Vehicle Code constitutes a proximate cause of the accident where the driver of the car in motion might also have been negligent, is a question of fact for the jury if reasonable men can differ thereon.” (Pp. 548-549.) This rule would also apply to a violation of section 588, subdivision (a) (now § 22502). | 1 | 1961–1961 |
Arthur v. Santa Monica Dairy Co.
green
2 sentences1961Arthur v. Santa Monica Dairy Co. (1960), 183 Cal.App.2d 483 [ 6 Cal.Rptr. 808 ], is not in point. 1961Arthur v. Santa Monica Dairy Co. (1960), 183 Cal.App.2d 483 [ 6 Cal.Rptr. 808 ], is not in point. | 1 | 1961–1961 |
Scalf v. Eicher
green
2 sentences1947Co., 68 Cal.App.2d 594 [ 157 P.2d 442 ] ; Roberts v. Salmon, 66 Cal.App.2d 22 [ 151 P.2d 556 ] ; Fietz v. Hubbard, 59 Cal.App.2d 124 [ 138 P.2d 315 ] ; Prescott v. City of Orange, 56 Cal.App.2d 144 [ 132 P.2d 523 ] ; Finney v. Wierman, 52 Cal.App.2d 282 [ 126 P.2d 143 ] ; Henslee v. Fox, 25 Cal.App.2d 286 [ 77 P.2d 307 ] ; Scalf v. Eicher, 11 Cal.App.2d 44 [ 53 P.2d 368 ] ; Hill v. Peres, 136 Cal.App. 144 [ 28 P.2d 944 ] ; Freitas v. Passerino, 131 Cal.App. 585 [ 21 P.2d 993 ]; Giorgetti v. Wollaston, 83 Cal.App. 358 [ 257 P. 109 ].) Thus in Rath v. Bankston, supra, where an automobile was par 1947Co., 68 Cal.App.2d 594 [ 157 P.2d 442 ] ; Roberts v. Salmon, 66 Cal.App.2d 22 [ 151 P.2d 556 ] ; Fietz v. Hubbard, 59 Cal.App.2d 124 [ 138 P.2d 315 ] ; Prescott v. City of Orange, 56 Cal.App.2d 144 [ 132 P.2d 523 ] ; Finney v. Wierman, 52 Cal.App.2d 282 [ 126 P.2d 143 ] ; Henslee v. Fox, 25 Cal.App.2d 286 [ 77 P.2d 307 ] ; Scalf v. Eicher, 11 Cal.App.2d 44 [ 53 P.2d 368 ] ; Hill v. Peres, 136 Cal.App. 144 [ 28 P.2d 944 ] ; Freitas v. Passerino, 131 Cal.App. 585 [ 21 P.2d 993 ]; Giorgetti v. Wollaston, 83 Cal.App. 358 [ 257 P. 109 ].) Thus in Rath v. Bankston, supra, where an automobile was par | 1 | 1947–1947 |
Henslee v. Fox
green
2 sentences1947Co., 68 Cal.App.2d 594 [ 157 P.2d 442 ] ; Roberts v. Salmon, 66 Cal.App.2d 22 [ 151 P.2d 556 ] ; Fietz v. Hubbard, 59 Cal.App.2d 124 [ 138 P.2d 315 ] ; Prescott v. City of Orange, 56 Cal.App.2d 144 [ 132 P.2d 523 ] ; Finney v. Wierman, 52 Cal.App.2d 282 [ 126 P.2d 143 ] ; Henslee v. Fox, 25 Cal.App.2d 286 [ 77 P.2d 307 ] ; Scalf v. Eicher, 11 Cal.App.2d 44 [ 53 P.2d 368 ] ; Hill v. Peres, 136 Cal.App. 144 [ 28 P.2d 944 ] ; Freitas v. Passerino, 131 Cal.App. 585 [ 21 P.2d 993 ]; Giorgetti v. Wollaston, 83 Cal.App. 358 [ 257 P. 109 ].) Thus in Rath v. Bankston, supra, where an automobile was par 1947Co., 68 Cal.App.2d 594 [ 157 P.2d 442 ] ; Roberts v. Salmon, 66 Cal.App.2d 22 [ 151 P.2d 556 ] ; Fietz v. Hubbard, 59 Cal.App.2d 124 [ 138 P.2d 315 ] ; Prescott v. City of Orange, 56 Cal.App.2d 144 [ 132 P.2d 523 ] ; Finney v. Wierman, 52 Cal.App.2d 282 [ 126 P.2d 143 ] ; Henslee v. Fox, 25 Cal.App.2d 286 [ 77 P.2d 307 ] ; Scalf v. Eicher, 11 Cal.App.2d 44 [ 53 P.2d 368 ] ; Hill v. Peres, 136 Cal.App. 144 [ 28 P.2d 944 ] ; Freitas v. Passerino, 131 Cal.App. 585 [ 21 P.2d 993 ]; Giorgetti v. Wollaston, 83 Cal.App. 358 [ 257 P. 109 ].) Thus in Rath v. Bankston, supra, where an automobile was par | 1 | 1947–1947 |
Roberts v. Salmon
green
2 sentences1947Co., 68 Cal.App.2d 594 [ 157 P.2d 442 ] ; Roberts v. Salmon, 66 Cal.App.2d 22 [ 151 P.2d 556 ] ; Fietz v. Hubbard, 59 Cal.App.2d 124 [ 138 P.2d 315 ] ; Prescott v. City of Orange, 56 Cal.App.2d 144 [ 132 P.2d 523 ] ; Finney v. Wierman, 52 Cal.App.2d 282 [ 126 P.2d 143 ] ; Henslee v. Fox, 25 Cal.App.2d 286 [ 77 P.2d 307 ] ; Scalf v. Eicher, 11 Cal.App.2d 44 [ 53 P.2d 368 ] ; Hill v. Peres, 136 Cal.App. 144 [ 28 P.2d 944 ] ; Freitas v. Passerino, 131 Cal.App. 585 [ 21 P.2d 993 ]; Giorgetti v. Wollaston, 83 Cal.App. 358 [ 257 P. 109 ].) Thus in Rath v. Bankston, supra, where an automobile was par 1947Co., 68 Cal.App.2d 594 [ 157 P.2d 442 ] ; Roberts v. Salmon, 66 Cal.App.2d 22 [ 151 P.2d 556 ] ; Fietz v. Hubbard, 59 Cal.App.2d 124 [ 138 P.2d 315 ] ; Prescott v. City of Orange, 56 Cal.App.2d 144 [ 132 P.2d 523 ] ; Finney v. Wierman, 52 Cal.App.2d 282 [ 126 P.2d 143 ] ; Henslee v. Fox, 25 Cal.App.2d 286 [ 77 P.2d 307 ] ; Scalf v. Eicher, 11 Cal.App.2d 44 [ 53 P.2d 368 ] ; Hill v. Peres, 136 Cal.App. 144 [ 28 P.2d 944 ] ; Freitas v. Passerino, 131 Cal.App. 585 [ 21 P.2d 993 ]; Giorgetti v. Wollaston, 83 Cal.App. 358 [ 257 P. 109 ].) Thus in Rath v. Bankston, supra, where an automobile was par | 1 | 1947–1947 |
Prescott v. City of Orange
green
2 sentences1947Co., 68 Cal.App.2d 594 [ 157 P.2d 442 ] ; Roberts v. Salmon, 66 Cal.App.2d 22 [ 151 P.2d 556 ] ; Fietz v. Hubbard, 59 Cal.App.2d 124 [ 138 P.2d 315 ] ; Prescott v. City of Orange, 56 Cal.App.2d 144 [ 132 P.2d 523 ] ; Finney v. Wierman, 52 Cal.App.2d 282 [ 126 P.2d 143 ] ; Henslee v. Fox, 25 Cal.App.2d 286 [ 77 P.2d 307 ] ; Scalf v. Eicher, 11 Cal.App.2d 44 [ 53 P.2d 368 ] ; Hill v. Peres, 136 Cal.App. 144 [ 28 P.2d 944 ] ; Freitas v. Passerino, 131 Cal.App. 585 [ 21 P.2d 993 ]; Giorgetti v. Wollaston, 83 Cal.App. 358 [ 257 P. 109 ].) Thus in Rath v. Bankston, supra, where an automobile was par 1947Co., 68 Cal.App.2d 594 [ 157 P.2d 442 ] ; Roberts v. Salmon, 66 Cal.App.2d 22 [ 151 P.2d 556 ] ; Fietz v. Hubbard, 59 Cal.App.2d 124 [ 138 P.2d 315 ] ; Prescott v. City of Orange, 56 Cal.App.2d 144 [ 132 P.2d 523 ] ; Finney v. Wierman, 52 Cal.App.2d 282 [ 126 P.2d 143 ] ; Henslee v. Fox, 25 Cal.App.2d 286 [ 77 P.2d 307 ] ; Scalf v. Eicher, 11 Cal.App.2d 44 [ 53 P.2d 368 ] ; Hill v. Peres, 136 Cal.App. 144 [ 28 P.2d 944 ] ; Freitas v. Passerino, 131 Cal.App. 585 [ 21 P.2d 993 ]; Giorgetti v. Wollaston, 83 Cal.App. 358 [ 257 P. 109 ].) Thus in Rath v. Bankston, supra, where an automobile was par | 1 | 1947–1947 |
Fietz v. Hubbard
green
2 sentences1947Co., 68 Cal.App.2d 594 [ 157 P.2d 442 ] ; Roberts v. Salmon, 66 Cal.App.2d 22 [ 151 P.2d 556 ] ; Fietz v. Hubbard, 59 Cal.App.2d 124 [ 138 P.2d 315 ] ; Prescott v. City of Orange, 56 Cal.App.2d 144 [ 132 P.2d 523 ] ; Finney v. Wierman, 52 Cal.App.2d 282 [ 126 P.2d 143 ] ; Henslee v. Fox, 25 Cal.App.2d 286 [ 77 P.2d 307 ] ; Scalf v. Eicher, 11 Cal.App.2d 44 [ 53 P.2d 368 ] ; Hill v. Peres, 136 Cal.App. 144 [ 28 P.2d 944 ] ; Freitas v. Passerino, 131 Cal.App. 585 [ 21 P.2d 993 ]; Giorgetti v. Wollaston, 83 Cal.App. 358 [ 257 P. 109 ].) Thus in Rath v. Bankston, supra, where an automobile was par 1947Co., 68 Cal.App.2d 594 [ 157 P.2d 442 ] ; Roberts v. Salmon, 66 Cal.App.2d 22 [ 151 P.2d 556 ] ; Fietz v. Hubbard, 59 Cal.App.2d 124 [ 138 P.2d 315 ] ; Prescott v. City of Orange, 56 Cal.App.2d 144 [ 132 P.2d 523 ] ; Finney v. Wierman, 52 Cal.App.2d 282 [ 126 P.2d 143 ] ; Henslee v. Fox, 25 Cal.App.2d 286 [ 77 P.2d 307 ] ; Scalf v. Eicher, 11 Cal.App.2d 44 [ 53 P.2d 368 ] ; Hill v. Peres, 136 Cal.App. 144 [ 28 P.2d 944 ] ; Freitas v. Passerino, 131 Cal.App. 585 [ 21 P.2d 993 ]; Giorgetti v. Wollaston, 83 Cal.App. 358 [ 257 P. 109 ].) Thus in Rath v. Bankston, supra, where an automobile was par | 1 | 1947–1947 |
Shelby v. Southern Pacific Co.
green
2 sentences1947Co., 68 Cal.App.2d 594 [ 157 P.2d 442 ] ; Roberts v. Salmon, 66 Cal.App.2d 22 [ 151 P.2d 556 ] ; Fietz v. Hubbard, 59 Cal.App.2d 124 [ 138 P.2d 315 ] ; Prescott v. City of Orange, 56 Cal.App.2d 144 [ 132 P.2d 523 ] ; Finney v. Wierman, 52 Cal.App.2d 282 [ 126 P.2d 143 ] ; Henslee v. Fox, 25 Cal.App.2d 286 [ 77 P.2d 307 ] ; Scalf v. Eicher, 11 Cal.App.2d 44 [ 53 P.2d 368 ] ; Hill v. Peres, 136 Cal.App. 144 [ 28 P.2d 944 ] ; Freitas v. Passerino, 131 Cal.App. 585 [ 21 P.2d 993 ]; Giorgetti v. Wollaston, 83 Cal.App. 358 [ 257 P. 109 ].) Thus in Rath v. Bankston, supra, where an automobile was par 1947Co., 68 Cal.App.2d 594 [ 157 P.2d 442 ] ; Roberts v. Salmon, 66 Cal.App.2d 22 [ 151 P.2d 556 ] ; Fietz v. Hubbard, 59 Cal.App.2d 124 [ 138 P.2d 315 ] ; Prescott v. City of Orange, 56 Cal.App.2d 144 [ 132 P.2d 523 ] ; Finney v. Wierman, 52 Cal.App.2d 282 [ 126 P.2d 143 ] ; Henslee v. Fox, 25 Cal.App.2d 286 [ 77 P.2d 307 ] ; Scalf v. Eicher, 11 Cal.App.2d 44 [ 53 P.2d 368 ] ; Hill v. Peres, 136 Cal.App. 144 [ 28 P.2d 944 ] ; Freitas v. Passerino, 131 Cal.App. 585 [ 21 P.2d 993 ]; Giorgetti v. Wollaston, 83 Cal.App. 358 [ 257 P. 109 ].) Thus in Rath v. Bankston, supra, where an automobile was par | 1 | 1947–1947 |
Freitas v. Passerino
neutral
2 sentences1947Co., 68 Cal.App.2d 594 [ 157 P.2d 442 ] ; Roberts v. Salmon, 66 Cal.App.2d 22 [ 151 P.2d 556 ] ; Fietz v. Hubbard, 59 Cal.App.2d 124 [ 138 P.2d 315 ] ; Prescott v. City of Orange, 56 Cal.App.2d 144 [ 132 P.2d 523 ] ; Finney v. Wierman, 52 Cal.App.2d 282 [ 126 P.2d 143 ] ; Henslee v. Fox, 25 Cal.App.2d 286 [ 77 P.2d 307 ] ; Scalf v. Eicher, 11 Cal.App.2d 44 [ 53 P.2d 368 ] ; Hill v. Peres, 136 Cal.App. 144 [ 28 P.2d 944 ] ; Freitas v. Passerino, 131 Cal.App. 585 [ 21 P.2d 993 ]; Giorgetti v. Wollaston, 83 Cal.App. 358 [ 257 P. 109 ].) Thus in Rath v. Bankston, supra, where an automobile was par 1947Co., 68 Cal.App.2d 594 [ 157 P.2d 442 ] ; Roberts v. Salmon, 66 Cal.App.2d 22 [ 151 P.2d 556 ] ; Fietz v. Hubbard, 59 Cal.App.2d 124 [ 138 P.2d 315 ] ; Prescott v. City of Orange, 56 Cal.App.2d 144 [ 132 P.2d 523 ] ; Finney v. Wierman, 52 Cal.App.2d 282 [ 126 P.2d 143 ] ; Henslee v. Fox, 25 Cal.App.2d 286 [ 77 P.2d 307 ] ; Scalf v. Eicher, 11 Cal.App.2d 44 [ 53 P.2d 368 ] ; Hill v. Peres, 136 Cal.App. 144 [ 28 P.2d 944 ] ; Freitas v. Passerino, 131 Cal.App. 585 [ 21 P.2d 993 ]; Giorgetti v. Wollaston, 83 Cal.App. 358 [ 257 P. 109 ].) Thus in Rath v. Bankston, supra, where an automobile was par | 1 | 1947–1947 |
Giorgetti v. Wollaston
green
2 sentences1947Co., 68 Cal.App.2d 594 [ 157 P.2d 442 ] ; Roberts v. Salmon, 66 Cal.App.2d 22 [ 151 P.2d 556 ] ; Fietz v. Hubbard, 59 Cal.App.2d 124 [ 138 P.2d 315 ] ; Prescott v. City of Orange, 56 Cal.App.2d 144 [ 132 P.2d 523 ] ; Finney v. Wierman, 52 Cal.App.2d 282 [ 126 P.2d 143 ] ; Henslee v. Fox, 25 Cal.App.2d 286 [ 77 P.2d 307 ] ; Scalf v. Eicher, 11 Cal.App.2d 44 [ 53 P.2d 368 ] ; Hill v. Peres, 136 Cal.App. 144 [ 28 P.2d 944 ] ; Freitas v. Passerino, 131 Cal.App. 585 [ 21 P.2d 993 ]; Giorgetti v. Wollaston, 83 Cal.App. 358 [ 257 P. 109 ].) Thus in Rath v. Bankston, supra, where an automobile was par 1947Co., 68 Cal.App.2d 594 [ 157 P.2d 442 ] ; Roberts v. Salmon, 66 Cal.App.2d 22 [ 151 P.2d 556 ] ; Fietz v. Hubbard, 59 Cal.App.2d 124 [ 138 P.2d 315 ] ; Prescott v. City of Orange, 56 Cal.App.2d 144 [ 132 P.2d 523 ] ; Finney v. Wierman, 52 Cal.App.2d 282 [ 126 P.2d 143 ] ; Henslee v. Fox, 25 Cal.App.2d 286 [ 77 P.2d 307 ] ; Scalf v. Eicher, 11 Cal.App.2d 44 [ 53 P.2d 368 ] ; Hill v. Peres, 136 Cal.App. 144 [ 28 P.2d 944 ] ; Freitas v. Passerino, 131 Cal.App. 585 [ 21 P.2d 993 ]; Giorgetti v. Wollaston, 83 Cal.App. 358 [ 257 P. 109 ].) Thus in Rath v. Bankston, supra, where an automobile was par | 1 | 1947–1947 |
Hill v. Peres
green
2 sentences1947Co., 68 Cal.App.2d 594 [ 157 P.2d 442 ] ; Roberts v. Salmon, 66 Cal.App.2d 22 [ 151 P.2d 556 ] ; Fietz v. Hubbard, 59 Cal.App.2d 124 [ 138 P.2d 315 ] ; Prescott v. City of Orange, 56 Cal.App.2d 144 [ 132 P.2d 523 ] ; Finney v. Wierman, 52 Cal.App.2d 282 [ 126 P.2d 143 ] ; Henslee v. Fox, 25 Cal.App.2d 286 [ 77 P.2d 307 ] ; Scalf v. Eicher, 11 Cal.App.2d 44 [ 53 P.2d 368 ] ; Hill v. Peres, 136 Cal.App. 144 [ 28 P.2d 944 ] ; Freitas v. Passerino, 131 Cal.App. 585 [ 21 P.2d 993 ]; Giorgetti v. Wollaston, 83 Cal.App. 358 [ 257 P. 109 ].) Thus in Rath v. Bankston, supra, where an automobile was par 1947Co., 68 Cal.App.2d 594 [ 157 P.2d 442 ] ; Roberts v. Salmon, 66 Cal.App.2d 22 [ 151 P.2d 556 ] ; Fietz v. Hubbard, 59 Cal.App.2d 124 [ 138 P.2d 315 ] ; Prescott v. City of Orange, 56 Cal.App.2d 144 [ 132 P.2d 523 ] ; Finney v. Wierman, 52 Cal.App.2d 282 [ 126 P.2d 143 ] ; Henslee v. Fox, 25 Cal.App.2d 286 [ 77 P.2d 307 ] ; Scalf v. Eicher, 11 Cal.App.2d 44 [ 53 P.2d 368 ] ; Hill v. Peres, 136 Cal.App. 144 [ 28 P.2d 944 ] ; Freitas v. Passerino, 131 Cal.App. 585 [ 21 P.2d 993 ]; Giorgetti v. Wollaston, 83 Cal.App. 358 [ 257 P. 109 ].) Thus in Rath v. Bankston, supra, where an automobile was par | 1 | 1947–1947 |
Finney v. Wierman
green
2 sentences1947Co., 68 Cal.App.2d 594 [ 157 P.2d 442 ] ; Roberts v. Salmon, 66 Cal.App.2d 22 [ 151 P.2d 556 ] ; Fietz v. Hubbard, 59 Cal.App.2d 124 [ 138 P.2d 315 ] ; Prescott v. City of Orange, 56 Cal.App.2d 144 [ 132 P.2d 523 ] ; Finney v. Wierman, 52 Cal.App.2d 282 [ 126 P.2d 143 ] ; Henslee v. Fox, 25 Cal.App.2d 286 [ 77 P.2d 307 ] ; Scalf v. Eicher, 11 Cal.App.2d 44 [ 53 P.2d 368 ] ; Hill v. Peres, 136 Cal.App. 144 [ 28 P.2d 944 ] ; Freitas v. Passerino, 131 Cal.App. 585 [ 21 P.2d 993 ]; Giorgetti v. Wollaston, 83 Cal.App. 358 [ 257 P. 109 ].) Thus in Rath v. Bankston, supra, where an automobile was par 1947Co., 68 Cal.App.2d 594 [ 157 P.2d 442 ] ; Roberts v. Salmon, 66 Cal.App.2d 22 [ 151 P.2d 556 ] ; Fietz v. Hubbard, 59 Cal.App.2d 124 [ 138 P.2d 315 ] ; Prescott v. City of Orange, 56 Cal.App.2d 144 [ 132 P.2d 523 ] ; Finney v. Wierman, 52 Cal.App.2d 282 [ 126 P.2d 143 ] ; Henslee v. Fox, 25 Cal.App.2d 286 [ 77 P.2d 307 ] ; Scalf v. Eicher, 11 Cal.App.2d 44 [ 53 P.2d 368 ] ; Hill v. Peres, 136 Cal.App. 144 [ 28 P.2d 944 ] ; Freitas v. Passerino, 131 Cal.App. 585 [ 21 P.2d 993 ]; Giorgetti v. Wollaston, 83 Cal.App. 358 [ 257 P. 109 ].) Thus in Rath v. Bankston, supra, where an automobile was par | 1 | 1947–1947 |
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.