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.
9 California opinions name it 1 courts 1910–2024 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Biren v. Equality Emergency Medical Group, Inc.green1 sentence2024(See Biren v. Equality Emergency Medical Group, Inc. (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 125, 141 [the parties may, by their conduct, waive contract provision where the evidence shows waiver was their intent]; see also Wagner v. Glendale Adventist Medical Center (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 1379, 1388 [where a party behaves in a manner antithetical to a written provision and induced the other party to rely on the oral representations and conduct, it would be inequitable to deny the relying party “the benefit of the other party’s apparent modification of the written contract”].) Moreover, the contract was for Lorc | 1 | 1 |
Wagner v. Glendale Adventist Medical Centergreen1 sentence2024(See Biren v. Equality Emergency Medical Group, Inc. (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 125, 141 [the parties may, by their conduct, waive contract provision where the evidence shows waiver was their intent]; see also Wagner v. Glendale Adventist Medical Center (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 1379, 1388 [where a party behaves in a manner antithetical to a written provision and induced the other party to rely on the oral representations and conduct, it would be inequitable to deny the relying party “the benefit of the other party’s apparent modification of the written contract”].) Moreover, the contract was for Lorc | 1 | 1 |
Barnett v. Superior Courtgreen1 sentence2015(People v. Maury (2003) 30 Cal.4th 342, 403 , disapproved on another ground by Barnett v. Superior Court (2010) 50 Cal.4th 890, 896 [reviewing court does not resolve credibility issues or evidentiary conflicts].) More than that, however, this evidence shows that the error in introducing defendant’s nonverbal admission of gang membership was harmless beyond a 21 reasonable doubt as to defendant’s conviction. | 1 | 1 |
McLane v. Van Eatongreen2 sentences1983(See McLane v. Van Eaton (1943) 60 Cal.App.2d 612, 616 [ 141 P.2d 783 ].) Appellants have themselves waived their right to review of this question. 1983(See McLane v. Van Eaton (1943) 60 Cal.App.2d 612, 616 [ 141 P.2d 783 ].) Appellants have themselves waived their right to review of this question. | 1 | 1 |
Escobedo v. Illinoisgreen2 sentences1965(Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 491 [ 74 S.Ct. 1758 , 12 L.Ed.2d 977 ].) In the present case the evidence shows these factors answerable somewhat as follows: Time of interrogation—about 1 p.m. immediately following arrest; Place of interrogation—in the ambulance on the way to the hospital; Length of interrogation—while riding to the county hospital; Nature of questions—whether the suspect was the man involved in the Beau Jest attempted burglary; the conversation was in large part a narrative statement by the suspect; Conduct of police—there is no evidence of threats, promises, over-reachi 1965(Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 491 [ 74 S.Ct. 1758 , 12 L.Ed.2d 977 ].) In the present case the evidence shows these factors answerable somewhat as follows: Time of interrogation—about 1 p.m. immediately following arrest; Place of interrogation—in the ambulance on the way to the hospital; Length of interrogation—while riding to the county hospital; Nature of questions—whether the suspect was the man involved in the Beau Jest attempted burglary; the conversation was in large part a narrative statement by the suspect; Conduct of police—there is no evidence of threats, promises, over-reachi | 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. Maury
green
1 sentence2015(People v. Maury (2003) 30 Cal.4th 342, 403 , disapproved on another ground by Barnett v. Superior Court (2010) 50 Cal.4th 890, 896 [reviewing court does not resolve credibility issues or evidentiary conflicts].) More than that, however, this evidence shows that the error in introducing defendant’s nonverbal admission of gang membership was harmless beyond a 21 reasonable doubt as to defendant’s conviction. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Redfoot v. J. T. Jenkins Co.
green
2 sentences1962Jenkins Co., 138 Cal.App.2d 108 [ 291 P.2d 134 ].) The evidence shows that a warning system consisting of a buzzer, semaphore or red light to show the escape of air was not in general use in 1952. 1962Jenkins Co., 138 Cal.App.2d 108 [ 291 P.2d 134 ].) The evidence shows that a warning system consisting of a buzzer, semaphore or red light to show the escape of air was not in general use in 1952. | 1 | 1962–1962 |
Gallichotte v. California Mutual Building & Loan Ass'n
green
1 sentence1940(Rath v. Bankston, 101 Cal. App. 274 [ 281 Pac. 1081 ] ; Berkovitz v. American River Gravel Co., 191 Cal. 195 [ 215 Pac. 675 ] ; Gallichotte v. California Mutual Building & Loan Assn., 4 Cal. App. (2d) 503 [ 41 Pac. (2d) 349 ].) “Whether or not a violation of a statute or ordinance proximately contributed to an accident and. whether the violation was excusable or justifiable are *683 questions of fact ...” (Scalf v. Eicher, 11 Cal. App. (2d) 44 [ 53 Pac. (2d) 368 ]), but the failure to include the language in question or similar language in an instruction when the only inference that may be dr | 1 | 1940–1940 |
Rath v. Bankston
green
2 sentences1940(Rath v. Bankston, 101 Cal. App. 274 [ 281 Pac. 1081 ] ; Berkovitz v. American River Gravel Co., 191 Cal. 195 [ 215 Pac. 675 ] ; Gallichotte v. California Mutual Building & Loan Assn., 4 Cal. App. (2d) 503 [ 41 Pac. (2d) 349 ].) “Whether or not a violation of a statute or ordinance proximately contributed to an accident and. whether the violation was excusable or justifiable are *683 questions of fact ...” (Scalf v. Eicher, 11 Cal. App. (2d) 44 [ 53 Pac. (2d) 368 ]), but the failure to include the language in question or similar language in an instruction when the only inference that may be dr 1940(Rath v. Bankston, 101 Cal. App. 274 [ 281 Pac. 1081 ] ; Berkovitz v. American River Gravel Co., 191 Cal. 195 [ 215 Pac. 675 ] ; Gallichotte v. California Mutual Building & Loan Assn., 4 Cal. App. (2d) 503 [ 41 Pac. (2d) 349 ].) “Whether or not a violation of a statute or ordinance proximately contributed to an accident and. whether the violation was excusable or justifiable are *683 questions of fact ...” (Scalf v. Eicher, 11 Cal. App. (2d) 44 [ 53 Pac. (2d) 368 ]), but the failure to include the language in question or similar language in an instruction when the only inference that may be dr | 1 | 1940–1940 |
Berkovitz v. American River Gravel Co.
green
2 sentences1940(Rath v. Bankston, 101 Cal. App. 274 [ 281 Pac. 1081 ] ; Berkovitz v. American River Gravel Co., 191 Cal. 195 [ 215 Pac. 675 ] ; Gallichotte v. California Mutual Building & Loan Assn., 4 Cal. App. (2d) 503 [ 41 Pac. (2d) 349 ].) “Whether or not a violation of a statute or ordinance proximately contributed to an accident and. whether the violation was excusable or justifiable are *683 questions of fact ...” (Scalf v. Eicher, 11 Cal. App. (2d) 44 [ 53 Pac. (2d) 368 ]), but the failure to include the language in question or similar language in an instruction when the only inference that may be dr 1940(Rath v. Bankston, 101 Cal. App. 274 [ 281 Pac. 1081 ] ; Berkovitz v. American River Gravel Co., 191 Cal. 195 [ 215 Pac. 675 ] ; Gallichotte v. California Mutual Building & Loan Assn., 4 Cal. App. (2d) 503 [ 41 Pac. (2d) 349 ].) “Whether or not a violation of a statute or ordinance proximately contributed to an accident and. whether the violation was excusable or justifiable are *683 questions of fact ...” (Scalf v. Eicher, 11 Cal. App. (2d) 44 [ 53 Pac. (2d) 368 ]), but the failure to include the language in question or similar language in an instruction when the only inference that may be dr | 1 | 1940–1940 |
Scalf v. Eicher
green
1 sentence1940(Rath v. Bankston, 101 Cal. App. 274 [ 281 Pac. 1081 ] ; Berkovitz v. American River Gravel Co., 191 Cal. 195 [ 215 Pac. 675 ] ; Gallichotte v. California Mutual Building & Loan Assn., 4 Cal. App. (2d) 503 [ 41 Pac. (2d) 349 ].) “Whether or not a violation of a statute or ordinance proximately contributed to an accident and. whether the violation was excusable or justifiable are *683 questions of fact ...” (Scalf v. Eicher, 11 Cal. App. (2d) 44 [ 53 Pac. (2d) 368 ]), but the failure to include the language in question or similar language in an instruction when the only inference that may be dr | 1 | 1940–1940 |
Hewes v. Germain Fruit Co.
green
1 sentence1923It is conceded that plaintiff tendered the undelivered portion of the crop in fulfillment of his contract, and upon this subject there is no dispute. [2] Every tender, however, does not transfer title; and where, as here, the contract provides that payment is to be made upon delivery, the tender implies that the fulfillment of this concurrent condition must be complied with before title will pass from the seller to the buyer (Hewes v. Germain Fruit Co., 106 Cal. 441 [39 *138 Pac. 853] ; Katzenbach v. Breslauer, 51 Cal. App. 756 [ 197 Pac. 967 ]; Wong Foo v. Southern Pacific Co., 41 Cal. App. 4 | 1 | 1923–1923 |
Livesley v. Landon
green
1 sentence1923It is conceded that plaintiff tendered the undelivered portion of the crop in fulfillment of his contract, and upon this subject there is no dispute. [2] Every tender, however, does not transfer title; and where, as here, the contract provides that payment is to be made upon delivery, the tender implies that the fulfillment of this concurrent condition must be complied with before title will pass from the seller to the buyer (Hewes v. Germain Fruit Co., 106 Cal. 441 [39 *138 Pac. 853] ; Katzenbach v. Breslauer, 51 Cal. App. 756 [ 197 Pac. 967 ]; Wong Foo v. Southern Pacific Co., 41 Cal. App. 4 | 1 | 1923–1923 |
Katzenbach & Bullock Co. v. Breslauer
green
2 sentences1923It is conceded that plaintiff tendered the undelivered portion of the crop in fulfillment of his contract, and upon this subject there is no dispute. [2] Every tender, however, does not transfer title; and where, as here, the contract provides that payment is to be made upon delivery, the tender implies that the fulfillment of this concurrent condition must be complied with before title will pass from the seller to the buyer (Hewes v. Germain Fruit Co., 106 Cal. 441 [39 *138 Pac. 853] ; Katzenbach v. Breslauer, 51 Cal. App. 756 [ 197 Pac. 967 ]; Wong Foo v. Southern Pacific Co., 41 Cal. App. 4 1923It is conceded that plaintiff tendered the undelivered portion of the crop in fulfillment of his contract, and upon this subject there is no dispute. [2] Every tender, however, does not transfer title; and where, as here, the contract provides that payment is to be made upon delivery, the tender implies that the fulfillment of this concurrent condition must be complied with before title will pass from the seller to the buyer (Hewes v. Germain Fruit Co., 106 Cal. 441 [39 *138 Pac. 853] ; Katzenbach v. Breslauer, 51 Cal. App. 756 [ 197 Pac. 967 ]; Wong Foo v. Southern Pacific Co., 41 Cal. App. 4 | 1 | 1923–1923 |
Wong Foo v. Southern Pacific Co.
green
2 sentences1923It is conceded that plaintiff tendered the undelivered portion of the crop in fulfillment of his contract, and upon this subject there is no dispute. [2] Every tender, however, does not transfer title; and where, as here, the contract provides that payment is to be made upon delivery, the tender implies that the fulfillment of this concurrent condition must be complied with before title will pass from the seller to the buyer (Hewes v. Germain Fruit Co., 106 Cal. 441 [39 *138 Pac. 853] ; Katzenbach v. Breslauer, 51 Cal. App. 756 [ 197 Pac. 967 ]; Wong Foo v. Southern Pacific Co., 41 Cal. App. 4 1923It is conceded that plaintiff tendered the undelivered portion of the crop in fulfillment of his contract, and upon this subject there is no dispute. [2] Every tender, however, does not transfer title; and where, as here, the contract provides that payment is to be made upon delivery, the tender implies that the fulfillment of this concurrent condition must be complied with before title will pass from the seller to the buyer (Hewes v. Germain Fruit Co., 106 Cal. 441 [39 *138 Pac. 853] ; Katzenbach v. Breslauer, 51 Cal. App. 756 [ 197 Pac. 967 ]; Wong Foo v. Southern Pacific Co., 41 Cal. App. 4 | 1 | 1923–1923 |
Minor v. Fike
green
2 sentences1913(N. Y.) 641, 652; Minor v. Fike, 77 Kan. 806 , [ 93 Pac. 264 ]; Filer v. Wohletz, 79 Kan. 716 , [ 101 Pac. 474 ]; 1 Page on Contracts, 321.) But apart from these considerations it will be remembered that the evidence shows that the claim of plaintiff’s assignor was disputed not only upon the ground that the contract in controversy covenanted that the actual cost of the work to be done thereunder would not exceed the sum of one thousand dollars, but also because the charge made therefor included the cost of additional and unauthorized work and labor. 1913(N. Y.) 641, 652; Minor v. Fike, 77 Kan. 806 , [ 93 Pac. 264 ]; Filer v. Wohletz, 79 Kan. 716 , [ 101 Pac. 474 ]; 1 Page on Contracts, 321.) But apart from these considerations it will be remembered that the evidence shows that the claim of plaintiff’s assignor was disputed not only upon the ground that the contract in controversy covenanted that the actual cost of the work to be done thereunder would not exceed the sum of one thousand dollars, but also because the charge made therefor included the cost of additional and unauthorized work and labor. | 1 | 1913–1913 |
Kiler v. Wohletz
green
2 sentences1913(N. Y.) 641, 652; Minor v. Fike, 77 Kan. 806 , [ 93 Pac. 264 ]; Filer v. Wohletz, 79 Kan. 716 , [ 101 Pac. 474 ]; 1 Page on Contracts, 321.) But apart from these considerations it will be remembered that the evidence shows that the claim of plaintiff’s assignor was disputed not only upon the ground that the contract in controversy covenanted that the actual cost of the work to be done thereunder would not exceed the sum of one thousand dollars, but also because the charge made therefor included the cost of additional and unauthorized work and labor. 1913(N. Y.) 641, 652; Minor v. Fike, 77 Kan. 806 , [ 93 Pac. 264 ]; Filer v. Wohletz, 79 Kan. 716 , [ 101 Pac. 474 ]; 1 Page on Contracts, 321.) But apart from these considerations it will be remembered that the evidence shows that the claim of plaintiff’s assignor was disputed not only upon the ground that the contract in controversy covenanted that the actual cost of the work to be done thereunder would not exceed the sum of one thousand dollars, but also because the charge made therefor included the cost of additional and unauthorized work and labor. | 1 | 1913–1913 |
Devoe v. . N.Y.C. H.R.R.R. Co.
neutral
2 sentences1910Co., 174 N. Y. 1 , [ 66 N. E. 568 ].) It is only where it appears beyond dispute that the situation was not one demanding rules, or one in which the evidence shows that no rule could have prevented the accident, that the courts may declare, as a matter of law, that the master was under no obligation to have established rules. 1910Co., 174 N. Y. 1 , [ 66 N. E. 568 ].) It is only where it appears beyond dispute that the situation was not one demanding rules, or one in which the evidence shows that no rule could have prevented the accident, that the courts may declare, as a matter of law, that the master was under no obligation to have established rules. | 1 | 1910–1910 |
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.