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 1905–1979 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ford v. CHESLEY TRANSPORTATION CO. INC.green2 sentences1962(Bertoli v. Hardisty, 154 Cal.App.2d 283, 287 [ 315 P.2d 890 ].) Thus, as the court said in Ford v. Chesley Transportation Co., 101 Cal.App.2d 548, 553 [ 225 P.2d 997 ] : “The considerations pointing to negligence would have to overcome not only those pointing to a contrary conclusion, but also the presumption that defendant was not negligent.” And, as the court held in Nunnemaker v. Headlee, 140 Cal.App.2d 666, 676 [ 295 P.2d 438 ], under such circumstances “it could well be that the jury, relying upon the presumption, determined that respondent was not negligent. ’ ’ The appellants’ second a 1962(Bertoli v. Hardisty, 154 Cal.App.2d 283, 287 [ 315 P.2d 890 ].) Thus, as the court said in Ford v. Chesley Transportation Co., 101 Cal.App.2d 548, 553 [ 225 P.2d 997 ] : “The considerations pointing to negligence would have to overcome not only those pointing to a contrary conclusion, but also the presumption that defendant was not negligent.” And, as the court held in Nunnemaker v. Headlee, 140 Cal.App.2d 666, 676 [ 295 P.2d 438 ], under such circumstances “it could well be that the jury, relying upon the presumption, determined that respondent was not negligent. ’ ’ The appellants’ second a | 2 | 2 |
Nunnemaker v. Headleegreen2 sentences1962(Bertoli v. Hardisty, 154 Cal.App.2d 283, 287 [ 315 P.2d 890 ].) Thus, as the court said in Ford v. Chesley Transportation Co., 101 Cal.App.2d 548, 553 [ 225 P.2d 997 ] : “The considerations pointing to negligence would have to overcome not only those pointing to a contrary conclusion, but also the presumption that defendant was not negligent.” And, as the court held in Nunnemaker v. Headlee, 140 Cal.App.2d 666, 676 [ 295 P.2d 438 ], under such circumstances “it could well be that the jury, relying upon the presumption, determined that respondent was not negligent. ’ ’ The appellants’ second a 1962(Bertoli v. Hardisty, 154 Cal.App.2d 283, 287 [ 315 P.2d 890 ].) Thus, as the court said in Ford v. Chesley Transportation Co., 101 Cal.App.2d 548, 553 [ 225 P.2d 997 ] : “The considerations pointing to negligence would have to overcome not only those pointing to a contrary conclusion, but also the presumption that defendant was not negligent.” And, as the court held in Nunnemaker v. Headlee, 140 Cal.App.2d 666, 676 [ 295 P.2d 438 ], under such circumstances “it could well be that the jury, relying upon the presumption, determined that respondent was not negligent. ’ ’ The appellants’ second a | 2 | 2 |
Bertoli v. Hardistygreen2 sentences1962(Bertoli v. Hardisty, 154 Cal.App.2d 283, 287 [ 315 P.2d 890 ].) Thus, as the court said in Ford v. Chesley Transportation Co., 101 Cal.App.2d 548, 553 [ 225 P.2d 997 ] : “The considerations pointing to negligence would have to overcome not only those pointing to a contrary conclusion, but also the presumption that defendant was not negligent.” And, as the court held in Nunnemaker v. Headlee, 140 Cal.App.2d 666, 676 [ 295 P.2d 438 ], under such circumstances “it could well be that the jury, relying upon the presumption, determined that respondent was not negligent. ’ ’ The appellants’ second a 1962(Bertoli v. Hardisty, 154 Cal.App.2d 283, 287 [ 315 P.2d 890 ].) Thus, as the court said in Ford v. Chesley Transportation Co., 101 Cal.App.2d 548, 553 [ 225 P.2d 997 ] : “The considerations pointing to negligence would have to overcome not only those pointing to a contrary conclusion, but also the presumption that defendant was not negligent.” And, as the court held in Nunnemaker v. Headlee, 140 Cal.App.2d 666, 676 [ 295 P.2d 438 ], under such circumstances “it could well be that the jury, relying upon the presumption, determined that respondent was not negligent. ’ ’ The appellants’ second a | 2 | 2 |
Jenkins v. Dahnertgreen2 sentences1962(Bate v. Jolin, 206 Cal. 504, 508 [ 274 P. 971 ] ; Reid v. Gillespie, 87 Cal.App.2d 769, 771 [ 197 P.2d 566 ], and Jenkins v. Dahnert, 202 Cal. App.2d 567, 568 [ 21 Cal.Rptr. 15 ].) It cannot be appellant’s contention that the issue he meant to raise is that no damage at all was shown by the evidence (Roche v. Casissa, 154 Cal.App.2d 785, 787 [ 316 P.2d 776 ]) for the testimony set forth in his own brief on this subject indicates that evidence of substantial damage was presented. 1962(Bate v. Jolin, 206 Cal. 504, 508 [ 274 P. 971 ] ; Reid v. Gillespie, 87 Cal.App.2d 769, 771 [ 197 P.2d 566 ], and Jenkins v. Dahnert, 202 Cal. App.2d 567, 568 [ 21 Cal.Rptr. 15 ].) It cannot be appellant’s contention that the issue he meant to raise is that no damage at all was shown by the evidence (Roche v. Casissa, 154 Cal.App.2d 785, 787 [ 316 P.2d 776 ]) for the testimony set forth in his own brief on this subject indicates that evidence of substantial damage was presented. | 1 | 1 |
Roche v. Casissagreen2 sentences1962(Bate v. Jolin, 206 Cal. 504, 508 [ 274 P. 971 ] ; Reid v. Gillespie, 87 Cal.App.2d 769, 771 [ 197 P.2d 566 ], and Jenkins v. Dahnert, 202 Cal. App.2d 567, 568 [ 21 Cal.Rptr. 15 ].) It cannot be appellant’s contention that the issue he meant to raise is that no damage at all was shown by the evidence (Roche v. Casissa, 154 Cal.App.2d 785, 787 [ 316 P.2d 776 ]) for the testimony set forth in his own brief on this subject indicates that evidence of substantial damage was presented. 1962(Bate v. Jolin, 206 Cal. 504, 508 [ 274 P. 971 ] ; Reid v. Gillespie, 87 Cal.App.2d 769, 771 [ 197 P.2d 566 ], and Jenkins v. Dahnert, 202 Cal. App.2d 567, 568 [ 21 Cal.Rptr. 15 ].) It cannot be appellant’s contention that the issue he meant to raise is that no damage at all was shown by the evidence (Roche v. Casissa, 154 Cal.App.2d 785, 787 [ 316 P.2d 776 ]) for the testimony set forth in his own brief on this subject indicates that evidence of substantial damage was presented. | 1 | 1 |
Reid v. Gillespiegreen2 sentences1962(Bate v. Jolin, 206 Cal. 504, 508 [ 274 P. 971 ] ; Reid v. Gillespie, 87 Cal.App.2d 769, 771 [ 197 P.2d 566 ], and Jenkins v. Dahnert, 202 Cal. App.2d 567, 568 [ 21 Cal.Rptr. 15 ].) It cannot be appellant’s contention that the issue he meant to raise is that no damage at all was shown by the evidence (Roche v. Casissa, 154 Cal.App.2d 785, 787 [ 316 P.2d 776 ]) for the testimony set forth in his own brief on this subject indicates that evidence of substantial damage was presented. 1962(Bate v. Jolin, 206 Cal. 504, 508 [ 274 P. 971 ] ; Reid v. Gillespie, 87 Cal.App.2d 769, 771 [ 197 P.2d 566 ], and Jenkins v. Dahnert, 202 Cal. App.2d 567, 568 [ 21 Cal.Rptr. 15 ].) It cannot be appellant’s contention that the issue he meant to raise is that no damage at all was shown by the evidence (Roche v. Casissa, 154 Cal.App.2d 785, 787 [ 316 P.2d 776 ]) for the testimony set forth in his own brief on this subject indicates that evidence of substantial damage was presented. | 1 | 1 |
Bate v. Jolingreen2 sentences1962(Bate v. Jolin, 206 Cal. 504, 508 [ 274 P. 971 ] ; Reid v. Gillespie, 87 Cal.App.2d 769, 771 [ 197 P.2d 566 ], and Jenkins v. Dahnert, 202 Cal. App.2d 567, 568 [ 21 Cal.Rptr. 15 ].) It cannot be appellant’s contention that the issue he meant to raise is that no damage at all was shown by the evidence (Roche v. Casissa, 154 Cal.App.2d 785, 787 [ 316 P.2d 776 ]) for the testimony set forth in his own brief on this subject indicates that evidence of substantial damage was presented. 1962(Bate v. Jolin, 206 Cal. 504, 508 [ 274 P. 971 ] ; Reid v. Gillespie, 87 Cal.App.2d 769, 771 [ 197 P.2d 566 ], and Jenkins v. Dahnert, 202 Cal. App.2d 567, 568 [ 21 Cal.Rptr. 15 ].) It cannot be appellant’s contention that the issue he meant to raise is that no damage at all was shown by the evidence (Roche v. Casissa, 154 Cal.App.2d 785, 787 [ 316 P.2d 776 ]) for the testimony set forth in his own brief on this subject indicates that evidence of substantial damage was presented. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Stanglergreen2 sentences1945See also People v. Stangler, 18 Cal.2d 688, 692 [ 117 P.2d 321 ].) The appellant’s second assignment of error indicates three separate contentions: (1) that the venue was not established; (2) that sexual penetration of the prosecutrix was not proven; and (3) that the circumstantial evidence disclosed by the record was as consistent with innocence as with guilt. 1945See also People v. Stangler, 18 Cal.2d 688, 692 [ 117 P.2d 321 ].) The appellant’s second assignment of error indicates three separate contentions: (1) that the venue was not established; (2) that sexual penetration of the prosecutrix was not proven; and (3) that the circumstantial evidence disclosed by the record was as consistent with innocence as with guilt. | 1 | 1 |
Boyce v. San Diego High School Districtgreen2 sentences1940(Boyce v. San Diego High School Dist., 215 Cal. 293, at 295 [ 10 Pac. (2d) 62 ].) *305 As a second assignment of error appellant claims that the following instruction given by the court is prejudicially erroneous: “You are instructed that the law presumes that both Carl R. 1940(Boyce v. San Diego High School Dist., 215 Cal. 293, at 295 [ 10 Pac. (2d) 62 ].) *305 As a second assignment of error appellant claims that the following instruction given by the court is prejudicially erroneous: “You are instructed that the law presumes that both Carl R. | 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. Hitch
green
2 sentences1979In a second assignment of error, defendant contends that he was denied due process and a fair trial in that the state did not preserve evidence crucial to the defense, citing People v. Hitch (1974) 12 Cal.3d 641 [ 117 Cal.Rptr. 9 , 527 P.2d 361 ]. 1979In a second assignment of error, defendant contends that he was denied due process and a fair trial in that the state did not preserve evidence crucial to the defense, citing People v. Hitch (1974) 12 Cal.3d 641 [ 117 Cal.Rptr. 9 , 527 P.2d 361 ]. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Jensen v. Harry H. Culver & Co.
neutral
2 sentences1961Culver & Co., 127 Cal.App.Supp. 783 [ 15 P.2d 907 ].) *680 The second assignment of error is that the findings are not supported by the evidence. 1961Culver & Co., 127 Cal.App.Supp. 783 [ 15 P.2d 907 ].) *680 The second assignment of error is that the findings are not supported by the evidence. | 1 | 1961–1961 |
People v. Wein
red
2 sentences1960In People v. Wein, 50 Cal.2d 383 [ 326 P.2d 457 ], it was contended that by section 209 the Legislature intended that the movement be over a substantial distance and not merely between the rooms in a dwelling.' The court answered (p. 400) : “Here, the testimony of some of the victims fixed the amounts of movement at distances ranging from a few feet up to more than 50 feet. 1960In People v. Wein, 50 Cal.2d 383 [ 326 P.2d 457 ], it was contended that by section 209 the Legislature intended that the movement be over a substantial distance and not merely between the rooms in a dwelling.' The court answered (p. 400) : “Here, the testimony of some of the victims fixed the amounts of movement at distances ranging from a few feet up to more than 50 feet. | 1 | 1960–1960 |
Johnson v. Williams
green
2 sentences1925For this reason alone we should affirm the judgment upon that point (Estate of Berry, 195 Cal. 354 [ 233 Pac. 330 ]). 1925For this reason alone we should affirm the judgment upon that point (Estate of Berry, 195 Cal. 354 [ 233 Pac. 330 ]). | 1 | 1925–1925 |
Morton v. Broderick
green
1 sentence1905(Morton v. Broderick, 118 Cal. 486 , [ 50 Pac. 644 ].) *674 As to the second assignment of error. | 1 | 1905–1905 |
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.