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 2 courts 1912–1963 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Ho Kim Yougreen2 sentences1963Rep. 223 ]; People v. Ho Kim You, 24 Cal.App. 451, 465 [ 141 P. 950 ].) The next assignment of error arises from testimony of Bernice Goodwin, a sheriff’s matron. 1963Rep. 223 ]; People v. Ho Kim You, 24 Cal.App. 451, 465 [ 141 P. 950 ].) The next assignment of error arises from testimony of Bernice Goodwin, a sheriff’s matron. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Cavanaughgreen2 sentences1957The officer’s testimony was therefore properly received as an admission. (19 Cal.Jur.2d 133-36; People v. Cavanaugh, 44 Cal.2d 252, 266 [ 282 P.2d 53 ].) The next assignment of error to be considered is the contention of Hewett that the evidence tending to implicate him was legally insufficient as corroboration of the testimony of Mrs. Frawley. 1957The officer’s testimony was therefore properly received as an admission. (19 Cal.Jur.2d 133-36; People v. Cavanaugh, 44 Cal.2d 252, 266 [ 282 P.2d 53 ].) The next assignment of error to be considered is the contention of Hewett that the evidence tending to implicate him was legally insufficient as corroboration of the testimony of Mrs. Frawley. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Boylesgreen2 sentences1956(People v. Boyles, 45 Cal.2d 652, 655 [ 290 P.2d 535 ]; People v. Coleman, 134 Cal.App.2d 594 [ 286 P.2d 582 ].) The next assignment of error is that Delgado’s signed confession was erroneously admitted in evidence. 1956(People v. Boyles, 45 Cal.2d 652, 655 [ 290 P.2d 535 ]; People v. Coleman, 134 Cal.App.2d 594 [ 286 P.2d 582 ].) The next assignment of error is that Delgado’s signed confession was erroneously admitted in evidence. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Moralesgreen2 sentences1947(People v. Morales, 26 Cal.App.2d 442, 444 [ 79 P.2d 771 ].) Complaint is also made of the following instruction which relates to the time for deliberation: “The law does not undertake to measure in units of time the length of the period during which the slayer must deliberate and premeditate or ponder over the killing before he has formed the intent to kill. 1947(People v. Morales, 26 Cal.App.2d 442, 444 [ 79 P.2d 771 ].) Complaint is also made of the following instruction which relates to the time for deliberation: “The law does not undertake to measure in units of time the length of the period during which the slayer must deliberate and premeditate or ponder over the killing before he has formed the intent to kill. | 1 | 1 |
Frost v. Berkeley Phosphate Co.green1 sentence1924A. 693, 20 S. E. 280 ].) In the case last cited the court says: “ ... it one uses his own land for the prosecution of some business from which injury to his neighbor "would either necessarily or probably ensue, he is liable if such injury docs result, even though he may have used reasonable care in the prosecution of such business.” The next assignment of error goes to the form of the decree, it being claimed that the part which - grants in *784 junctive relief is indefinite in that it does not advise appellants, what they are restrained from doing. | 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. Spillard
green
2 sentences1957(People v. Spillard, 15 Cal.App.2d 649 [ 59 P.2d 887 ].) The next assignment of error to be considered is that the court erred in refusing to give the following instruction at defendant’s request: “If the evidence in this case (as to any particular count) is susceptible of two constructions or interpretations, each of which appears to you to be reasonable, and one of which points to the guilt of the defendant, and the other to his innocence, it is your duty, under the law, to adopt that interpretation which will admit of the defendant’s innocence, and reject that which points to his guilt. 1957(People v. Spillard, 15 Cal.App.2d 649 [ 59 P.2d 887 ].) The next assignment of error to be considered is that the court erred in refusing to give the following instruction at defendant’s request: “If the evidence in this case (as to any particular count) is susceptible of two constructions or interpretations, each of which appears to you to be reasonable, and one of which points to the guilt of the defendant, and the other to his innocence, it is your duty, under the law, to adopt that interpretation which will admit of the defendant’s innocence, and reject that which points to his guilt. | 1 | 1957–1957 |
People v. Coleman
green
2 sentences1956(People v. Boyles, 45 Cal.2d 652, 655 [ 290 P.2d 535 ]; People v. Coleman, 134 Cal.App.2d 594 [ 286 P.2d 582 ].) The next assignment of error is that Delgado’s signed confession was erroneously admitted in evidence. 1956(People v. Boyles, 45 Cal.2d 652, 655 [ 290 P.2d 535 ]; People v. Coleman, 134 Cal.App.2d 594 [ 286 P.2d 582 ].) The next assignment of error is that Delgado’s signed confession was erroneously admitted in evidence. | 1 | 1956–1956 |
Squier v. Davis Standard Bread Co.
green
2 sentences1940(Briggs v. Jess Mead, Inc., 93 Cal. App. 666 [ 270 Pac. 263 ]; Squier v. Davis Standard Bread Co., 181 Cal. 533 [ 185 Pac. 391 ]; Blood v. Miura, supra.) The next assignment of error involves an instruction given in the language of section 550 of the Vehicle Code (1939), respecting the right of way rule at intersections. 1940(Briggs v. Jess Mead, Inc., 93 Cal. App. 666 [ 270 Pac. 263 ]; Squier v. Davis Standard Bread Co., 181 Cal. 533 [ 185 Pac. 391 ]; Blood v. Miura, supra.) The next assignment of error involves an instruction given in the language of section 550 of the Vehicle Code (1939), respecting the right of way rule at intersections. | 1 | 1940–1940 |
Briggs v. Jess Mead, Inc.
green
2 sentences1940(Briggs v. Jess Mead, Inc., 93 Cal. App. 666 [ 270 Pac. 263 ]; Squier v. Davis Standard Bread Co., 181 Cal. 533 [ 185 Pac. 391 ]; Blood v. Miura, supra.) The next assignment of error involves an instruction given in the language of section 550 of the Vehicle Code (1939), respecting the right of way rule at intersections. 1940(Briggs v. Jess Mead, Inc., 93 Cal. App. 666 [ 270 Pac. 263 ]; Squier v. Davis Standard Bread Co., 181 Cal. 533 [ 185 Pac. 391 ]; Blood v. Miura, supra.) The next assignment of error involves an instruction given in the language of section 550 of the Vehicle Code (1939), respecting the right of way rule at intersections. | 1 | 1940–1940 |
Santiago Panzardi, Inc. v. Benedicto
neutral
1 sentence1914In this behalf section 3459 of the Political Code and Swamp Land Dis *582 trict v. Silver, 98 Cal. 51 , [ 32 Pac. 866 ], are cited. | 1 | 1914–1914 |
Swamp Land District No. 150 v. A.J.
neutral
1 sentence1914In this behalf section 3459 of the Political Code and Swamp Land Dis *582 trict v. Silver, 98 Cal. 51 , [ 32 Pac. 866 ], are cited. | 1 | 1914–1914 |
In re the Estate of Sbarboro
green
1 sentence1912(Estate of Sbarboro, 70 Cal. 149 , [11 Pac. 563] ; Crew v. Pratt, 119 Cal. 153 , [ 51 Pac. 38 ].) The next assignment of error made by appellants relates to the exterior boundaries of the district to be assessed for' the work here considered. | 1 | 1912–1912 |
Sullivan v. Pratt
neutral
1 sentence1912(Estate of Sbarboro, 70 Cal. 149 , [11 Pac. 563] ; Crew v. Pratt, 119 Cal. 153 , [ 51 Pac. 38 ].) The next assignment of error made by appellants relates to the exterior boundaries of the district to be assessed for' the work here considered. | 1 | 1912–1912 |
Crew v. Pratt
green
1 sentence1912(Estate of Sbarboro, 70 Cal. 149 , [11 Pac. 563] ; Crew v. Pratt, 119 Cal. 153 , [ 51 Pac. 38 ].) The next assignment of error made by appellants relates to the exterior boundaries of the district to be assessed for' the work here considered. | 1 | 1912–1912 |
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.