9 California opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ornelas v. Randolphgreen2 sentences2009(Bacon v. Southern Cal. Edison Co., supra, 53 Cal.App.4th at p. 859 (Bacon).) The effect of section 846 was summarized by the Supreme Court in Ornelas v. Randolph (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1095, 1099-1100 [ 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 594 , 847 P.2d 560 ]: “[A]n owner of . . . real property owes no duty of care to keep the premises safe for entry or use by others for recreational purposes or to give recreational users warning of hazards on the property, unless: (1) the landowner willfully or maliciously fails to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, use, structure or activity; (2) permission to enter for a r 2009(Bacon v. Southern Cal. Edison Co., supra, 53 Cal.App.4th at p. 859 (Bacon).) The effect of section 846 was summarized by the Supreme Court in Ornelas v. Randolph (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1095, 1099-1100 [ 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 594 , 847 P.2d 560 ]: “[A]n owner of . . . real property owes no duty of care to keep the premises safe for entry or use by others for recreational purposes or to give recreational users warning of hazards on the property, unless: (1) the landowner willfully or maliciously fails to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, use, structure or activity; (2) permission to enter for a r | 2 | 2 |
Jackson v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.green2 sentences2009An issue of fact becomes one of law only when ‘the undisputed facts leave no room for a reasonable difference of opinion.’ (1231 Euclid Homeowners Assn. v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1018 [ 37 Cal.Rptr.3d 795 ].)” Civil Code section 846 Civil Code section 846 (section 846), called the recreational use immunity statute (Jackson v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1114 [ 114 Cal.Rptr.2d 831 ]), creates an exception to the general rule that private landowners owe a duty of reasonable care to *938 persons coming upon their land. 2009An issue of fact becomes one of law only when ‘the undisputed facts leave no room for a reasonable difference of opinion.’ (1231 Euclid Homeowners Assn. v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1018 [ 37 Cal.Rptr.3d 795 ].)” Civil Code section 846 Civil Code section 846 (section 846), called the recreational use immunity statute (Jackson v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1114 [ 114 Cal.Rptr.2d 831 ]), creates an exception to the general rule that private landowners owe a duty of reasonable care to *938 persons coming upon their land. | 1 | 2 |
Estate of Gilkisongreen1 sentence2022(Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 939, 957 [“It is the appellant’s burden on appeal to show the trial court abused its discretion”]; see also Estate of Gilkison (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 1443, 1448 .) Jury Instruction The trial court instructed the jury pursuant to CACI No. 1010 on the express invitation exception (§ 846(d)(3)) to the recreational use immunity defense. | 1 | 1 |
Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co.green1 sentence2022(Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 939, 957 [“It is the appellant’s burden on appeal to show the trial court abused its discretion”]; see also Estate of Gilkison (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 1443, 1448 .) Jury Instruction The trial court instructed the jury pursuant to CACI No. 1010 on the express invitation exception (§ 846(d)(3)) to the recreational use immunity defense. | 1 | 1 |
Charpentier v. Von Gelderngreen1 sentence2015Such a 10 burden, if imposed, would make an innocent landowner a virtual insurer against natural hazardous conditions . . . which could cause injury to recreational users." (Charpentier v. Von Geldern (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 101, 111 [owner not liable to trespasser injured by diving in a shallow portion of a river on owner's property].) We conclude the trial court properly found no evidentiary support for the willful failure to warn exception to the recreational use immunity of section 846 and the statute bars the Ritchies' claims. | 1 | 1 |
1231 Euclid Homeowners Ass'n v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.green2 sentences2009An issue of fact becomes one of law only when ‘the undisputed facts leave no room for a reasonable difference of opinion.’ (1231 Euclid Homeowners Assn. v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1018 [ 37 Cal.Rptr.3d 795 ].)” Civil Code section 846 Civil Code section 846 (section 846), called the recreational use immunity statute (Jackson v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1114 [ 114 Cal.Rptr.2d 831 ]), creates an exception to the general rule that private landowners owe a duty of reasonable care to *938 persons coming upon their land. 2009An issue of fact becomes one of law only when ‘the undisputed facts leave no room for a reasonable difference of opinion.’ (1231 Euclid Homeowners Assn. v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1018 [ 37 Cal.Rptr.3d 795 ].)” Civil Code section 846 Civil Code section 846 (section 846), called the recreational use immunity statute (Jackson v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1114 [ 114 Cal.Rptr.2d 831 ]), creates an exception to the general rule that private landowners owe a duty of reasonable care to *938 persons coming upon their land. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Rojasgreen2 sentences1999As one Court of Appeal aptly observed, this requirement *107 is not subject to measurement by objective criteria, because what constitutes an adequate statement of reasons necessarily is a subjective determination. ( People v. Rojas (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 278, 288 , 173 Cal.Rptr. 64 .) "The author of an opinion ... must follow his [or her] own judgment as to the degree of elaboration to be accorded to the treatment of any proposition and as to the questions which are worthy of notice at all." ( People v. Burke (1912) 18 Cal.App. 72, 79 , 122 P. 435 .) The Court of Appeal's decision in the prese 1999(People v. Rojas (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 278, 288 [ 173 Cal.Rptr. 64 ].) “The author of an opinion . . . must follow his [or her] own judgment as to the degree of elaboration to be accorded to the treatment of any proposition and as to the questions which are worthy of notice at all.” (People v. Burke (1912) 18 Cal.App. 72, 79 [ 122 P. 435 ].) The Court of Appeal’s decision in the present case includes three paragraphs analyzing Lewis’s argument that the action is barred by the recreational use immunity set forth in Civil Code section 846. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Burkegreen2 sentences1999As one Court of Appeal aptly observed, this requirement *107 is not subject to measurement by objective criteria, because what constitutes an adequate statement of reasons necessarily is a subjective determination. ( People v. Rojas (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 278, 288 , 173 Cal.Rptr. 64 .) "The author of an opinion ... must follow his [or her] own judgment as to the degree of elaboration to be accorded to the treatment of any proposition and as to the questions which are worthy of notice at all." ( People v. Burke (1912) 18 Cal.App. 72, 79 , 122 P. 435 .) The Court of Appeal's decision in the prese 1999As one Court of Appeal aptly observed, this requirement *107 is not subject to measurement by objective criteria, because what constitutes an adequate statement of reasons necessarily is a subjective determination. ( People v. Rojas (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 278, 288 , 173 Cal.Rptr. 64 .) "The author of an opinion ... must follow his [or her] own judgment as to the degree of elaboration to be accorded to the treatment of any proposition and as to the questions which are worthy of notice at all." ( People v. Burke (1912) 18 Cal.App. 72, 79 , 122 P. 435 .) The Court of Appeal's decision in the prese | 1 | 1 |
Placer County Water Agency v. Jonasgreen2 sentences1990(U.S. Const., 5th Amend.; United States v. Cox (10th Cir. 1951) 190 F.2d 293, 296 , cert. den. 342 U.S. 867 [ 96 L.Ed.2d 652 , 72 S.Ct. 107 ]; Placer County Water Agency v. Jonas (1969) 275 Cal.App.2d 691, 696 [ 80 Cal.Rptr. 252 ].) Applying a recreational use immunity statute to grazing permit holders does not undermine this purpose. 1990(U.S. Const., 5th Amend.; United States v. Cox (10th Cir. 1951) 190 F.2d 293, 296 , cert. den. 342 U.S. 867 [ 96 L.Ed.2d 652 , 72 S.Ct. 107 ]; Placer County Water Agency v. Jonas (1969) 275 Cal.App.2d 691, 696 [ 80 Cal.Rptr. 252 ].) Applying a recreational use immunity statute to grazing permit holders does not undermine this purpose. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Superior Court of San Mateo County
green
1 sentence2022Indeed, defendants repeatedly testified that their track was for family members only.” Plaintiff asserted, “If the property owners did 12 not open their property to the general public, the immunity authorized by Civi[l] Code § 846 would not attach.” In support of her assertion, plaintiff cited only one authority – Pacific Gas & Electric Co., supra, 10 Cal.App.5th 563 – without explaining why the authority is relevant. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
West v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences2006NOTES [1] All further statutory references are to the Civil Code unless otherwise noted. [2] The recreational use immunity statute states: "This section does not limit the liability which otherwise exists (a) for willful or malicious failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, use, structure or activity; or (b) for injury suffered in any case where permission to enter for the above purpose was granted for a consideration other than the consideration, if any, paid to said landowner by the state, or where consideration has been received from others for the same purpose; or (c) to any 2006NOTES [1] All further statutory references are to the Civil Code unless otherwise noted. [2] The recreational use immunity statute states: "This section does not limit the liability which otherwise exists (a) for willful or malicious failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, use, structure or activity; or (b) for injury suffered in any case where permission to enter for the above purpose was granted for a consideration other than the consideration, if any, paid to said landowner by the state, or where consideration has been received from others for the same purpose; or (c) to any | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Rowland v. Christian
red
2 sentences2001Section 846 Immunity Applies The recreational use immunity statute, codified in section 846, creates an exception to the general rule of Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108 [ 70 Cal.Rptr. 97 , 443 P.2d 561 , 32 A.L.R.3d 496 ] that a private landowner owes a duty of reasonable care to any person coming onto the land. 2001Section 846 Immunity Applies The recreational use immunity statute, codified in section 846, creates an exception to the general rule of Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108 [ 70 Cal.Rptr. 97 , 443 P.2d 561 , 32 A.L.R.3d 496 ] that a private landowner owes a duty of reasonable care to any person coming onto the land. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
United States v. Cox United States v. Beasley
green
2 sentences1990(U.S. Const., 5th Amend.; United States v. Cox (10th Cir. 1951) 190 F.2d 293, 296 , cert. den. 342 U.S. 867 [ 96 L.Ed.2d 652 , 72 S.Ct. 107 ]; Placer County Water Agency v. Jonas (1969) 275 Cal.App.2d 691, 696 [ 80 Cal.Rptr. 252 ].) Applying a recreational use immunity statute to grazing permit holders does not undermine this purpose. 1990(U.S. Const., 5th Amend.; United States v. Cox (10th Cir.1951) 190 F.2d 293, 296 , cert. den. 342 U.S. 867 [ 96 L.Ed.2d 652 , 72 S.Ct. 107 ]; Placer County Water Agency v. Jonas (1969) 275 Cal. App.2d 691, 696 [ 80 Cal. Rptr. 252 ].) Applying a recreational use immunity statute to grazing permit holders does not undermine this purpose. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Freedman Bros. v. Ellis
green
2 sentences1990(U.S. Const., 5th Amend.; United States v. Cox (10th Cir. 1951) 190 F.2d 293, 296 , cert. den. 342 U.S. 867 [ 96 L.Ed.2d 652 , 72 S.Ct. 107 ]; Placer County Water Agency v. Jonas (1969) 275 Cal.App.2d 691, 696 [ 80 Cal.Rptr. 252 ].) Applying a recreational use immunity statute to grazing permit holders does not undermine this purpose. 1990(U.S. Const., 5th Amend.; United States v. Cox (10th Cir.1951) 190 F.2d 293, 296 , cert. den. 342 U.S. 867 [ 96 L.Ed.2d 652 , 72 S.Ct. 107 ]; Placer County Water Agency v. Jonas (1969) 275 Cal. App.2d 691, 696 [ 80 Cal. Rptr. 252 ].) Applying a recreational use immunity statute to grazing permit holders does not undermine this purpose. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Guttmann v. Illinois Central Railroad
green
2 sentences1990(U.S. Const., 5th Amend.; United States v. Cox (10th Cir. 1951) 190 F.2d 293, 296 , cert. den. 342 U.S. 867 [ 96 L.Ed.2d 652 , 72 S.Ct. 107 ]; Placer County Water Agency v. Jonas (1969) 275 Cal.App.2d 691, 696 [ 80 Cal.Rptr. 252 ].) Applying a recreational use immunity statute to grazing permit holders does not undermine this purpose. 1990(U.S. Const., 5th Amend.; United States v. Cox (10th Cir.1951) 190 F.2d 293, 296 , cert. den. 342 U.S. 867 [ 96 L.Ed.2d 652 , 72 S.Ct. 107 ]; Placer County Water Agency v. Jonas (1969) 275 Cal. App.2d 691, 696 [ 80 Cal. Rptr. 252 ].) Applying a recreational use immunity statute to grazing permit holders does not undermine this purpose. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
People Ex Rel. Baker v. MacK
green
2 sentences1981Baker v. Mack, supra, 19 Cal. App.3d 1040, 1050 , and held that the river was deemed in law to be navigable even though it was not in fact navigable for some part of the year. 1981Baker v. Mack, supra, 19 Cal.App.3d 1040, 1050 , and held that the river was deemed in law to be navigable even though it was not in fact navigable for some part of the year. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
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.