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 1920–2012 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 |
|---|---|---|
Tilden v. County of Orangegreen2 sentences2012He is not required to pass upon the condition of the title to the interests involved for the purposes of taxation and assessment.” (Tilden v. County of Orange (1949) 89 Cal.App.2d 586, 588-589 [ 201 P.2d 86 ]; see also RCA Photophone Inc. v. Huffman, supra, 5 Cal.App.2d at p. 407 [“the term ‘owner’ may include others than the possessor of the legal title to property and is often used to designate persons in legal possession. 2012He is not required to pass upon the condition of the title to the interests involved for the purposes of taxation and assessment.” (Tilden v. County of Orange (1949) 89 Cal.App.2d 586, 588-589 [ 201 P.2d 86 ]; see also RCA Photophone Inc. v. Huffman, supra, 5 Cal.App.2d at p. 407 [“the term ‘owner’ may include others than the possessor of the legal title to property and is often used to designate persons in legal possession. | 1 | 1 |
RCA Photophone Inc. v. Huffmangreen1 sentence2012He is not required to pass upon the condition of the title to the interests involved for the purposes of taxation and assessment.” (Tilden v. County of Orange (1949) 89 Cal.App.2d 586, 588-589 [ 201 P.2d 86 ]; see also RCA Photophone Inc. v. Huffman, supra, 5 Cal.App.2d at p. 407 [“the term ‘owner’ may include others than the possessor of the legal title to property and is often used to designate persons in legal possession. | 1 | 1 |
Tassi v. Tassigreen2 sentences1963(Tassi v. Tassi, 160 Cal.App.2d 680, 692 [ 325 P.2d 872 ].) Defendant's remaining arguments on this point run to the weight to be accorded the evidence. 1963(Tassi v. Tassi, 160 Cal.App.2d 680, 692 [ 325 P.2d 872 ].) Defendant's remaining arguments on this point run to the weight to be accorded the evidence. | 1 | 1 |
Webster v. Board of Dental Examinersgreen2 sentences1953(Webster v. Board of Dental Examiners, 17 Cal.2d 534, 543 [ 110 P.2d 992 ].) A finding that certain property owned by a married person is separate or community is a finding of an ultimate fact. 1953(Webster v. Board of Dental Examiners, 17 Cal.2d 534, 543 [ 110 P.2d 992 ].) A finding that certain property owned by a married person is separate or community is a finding of an ultimate fact. | 1 | 1 |
California Canning Peach Growers v. Williamsgreen2 sentences1941(Dam v. Zink, 112 Cal. 91, 93 [ 44 Pac. 331 ]; Turner v. Turner, 187 Cal. 632, 636 [ 203 Pac. 109 ]; California Canning Peach Growers v. Williams, 11 Cal. (2d) 221, 232 [ 78 Pac. (2d) 1154 ]; Scarborough Co. v. Colver, 73 Cal. App. 435, 439 [ 238 Pac. 1102 ]; 24 Cal. Jur. 984 et seq.) The findings here were clearly sufficient under this rule, and the statute imposes no additional or more specific requirement as to the form in which the finding of the board must be put. 1941(Dam v. Zink, 112 Cal. 91, 93 [ 44 P. 331 ]; Turner v. Turner, 187 Cal. 632, 636 [ 203 P. 109 ]; California Canning Peach Growers v. Williams, 11 Cal.2d 221, 232 [78 PaCal.2d 1154]; Scarborough Co. v. Colver, 73 Cal.App. 435, 439 [ 238 P. 1102 ]; 24 Cal.Jur. 984 et seq.) The findings here were clearly sufficient under this rule, and the statute imposes no additional or more specific requirement as to the form in which the finding of the board must be put. | 1 | 1 |
Dam v. Zinkgreen2 sentences1941(Dam v. Zink, 112 Cal. 91, 93 [ 44 P. 331 ]; Turner v. Turner, 187 Cal. 632, 636 [ 203 P. 109 ]; California Canning Peach Growers v. Williams, 11 Cal.2d 221, 232 [78 PaCal.2d 1154]; Scarborough Co. v. Colver, 73 Cal.App. 435, 439 [ 238 P. 1102 ]; 24 Cal.Jur. 984 et seq.) The findings here were clearly sufficient under this rule, and the statute imposes no additional or more specific requirement as to the form in which the finding of the board must be put. 1941(Dam v. Zink, 112 Cal. 91, 93 [ 44 P. 331 ]; Turner v. Turner, 187 Cal. 632, 636 [ 203 P. 109 ]; California Canning Peach Growers v. Williams, 11 Cal.2d 221, 232 [78 PaCal.2d 1154]; Scarborough Co. v. Colver, 73 Cal.App. 435, 439 [ 238 P. 1102 ]; 24 Cal.Jur. 984 et seq.) The findings here were clearly sufficient under this rule, and the statute imposes no additional or more specific requirement as to the form in which the finding of the board must be put. | 1 | 1 |
W. B. Scarborough Co. v. Colvergreen2 sentences1941(Dam v. Zink, 112 Cal. 91, 93 [ 44 P. 331 ]; Turner v. Turner, 187 Cal. 632, 636 [ 203 P. 109 ]; California Canning Peach Growers v. Williams, 11 Cal.2d 221, 232 [78 PaCal.2d 1154]; Scarborough Co. v. Colver, 73 Cal.App. 435, 439 [ 238 P. 1102 ]; 24 Cal.Jur. 984 et seq.) The findings here were clearly sufficient under this rule, and the statute imposes no additional or more specific requirement as to the form in which the finding of the board must be put. 1941(Dam v. Zink, 112 Cal. 91, 93 [ 44 P. 331 ]; Turner v. Turner, 187 Cal. 632, 636 [ 203 P. 109 ]; California Canning Peach Growers v. Williams, 11 Cal.2d 221, 232 [78 PaCal.2d 1154]; Scarborough Co. v. Colver, 73 Cal.App. 435, 439 [ 238 P. 1102 ]; 24 Cal.Jur. 984 et seq.) The findings here were clearly sufficient under this rule, and the statute imposes no additional or more specific requirement as to the form in which the finding of the board must be put. | 1 | 1 |
Turner v. Turnergreen2 sentences1941(Dam v. Zink, 112 Cal. 91, 93 [ 44 P. 331 ]; Turner v. Turner, 187 Cal. 632, 636 [ 203 P. 109 ]; California Canning Peach Growers v. Williams, 11 Cal.2d 221, 232 [78 PaCal.2d 1154]; Scarborough Co. v. Colver, 73 Cal.App. 435, 439 [ 238 P. 1102 ]; 24 Cal.Jur. 984 et seq.) The findings here were clearly sufficient under this rule, and the statute imposes no additional or more specific requirement as to the form in which the finding of the board must be put. 1941(Dam v. Zink, 112 Cal. 91, 93 [ 44 P. 331 ]; Turner v. Turner, 187 Cal. 632, 636 [ 203 P. 109 ]; California Canning Peach Growers v. Williams, 11 Cal.2d 221, 232 [78 PaCal.2d 1154]; Scarborough Co. v. Colver, 73 Cal.App. 435, 439 [ 238 P. 1102 ]; 24 Cal.Jur. 984 et seq.) The findings here were clearly sufficient under this rule, and the statute imposes no additional or more specific requirement as to the form in which the finding of the board must be put. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Miranda v. Arizona
green
2 sentences1966This case was tried in December 1964, which was prior to the decision in Miranda v. Arizona (June 13, 1966), 384 U.S. 436 [ 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 ]. 1966This case was tried in December 1964, which was prior to the decision in Miranda v. Arizona (June 13, 1966), 384 U.S. 436 [ 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 ]. | 1 | 1966–1966 |
In re the Probate of the Alleged Will of Drake
neutral
1 sentence1947Misc. 484 [ 192 A. 428 ]; In re Noon’s Will, 31 Misc. 420 [65 N.Y.S. *705 568]; In re Eyett’s Will, 124 Misc. 523 [ 209 N.Y.S. 251 ].) In each of "these cases it was held that the signature of the testator, which appeared in the attestation clause, was a sufficient compliance with the requirement for subscription at the end of the will. | 1 | 1947–1947 |
McCue v. Turner
green
2 sentences1947Also, in Younger v. Duffie, 94 N.Y. 535 [ 46 Am.Rep. 156 ], McCue v. Turner, 252 Ky. 849 [ 68 S.W.2d 415 ], and In re Young’s Will, 153 Wis. 337 [ 141 N.W. 226 ], it was held to be a sufficient compliance with this requirement where the signature of the testator followed instead of preceded the attestation clause. 1947Also, in Younger v. Duffie, 94 N.Y. 535 [ 46 Am.Rep. 156 ], McCue v. Turner, 252 Ky. 849 [ 68 S.W.2d 415 ], and In re Young’s Will, 153 Wis. 337 [ 141 N.W. 226 ], it was held to be a sufficient compliance with this requirement where the signature of the testator followed instead of preceded the attestation clause. | 1 | 1947–1947 |
Younger v. . Duffie
green
2 sentences1947Also, in Younger v. Duffie, 94 N.Y. 535 [ 46 Am.Rep. 156 ], McCue v. Turner, 252 Ky. 849 [ 68 S.W.2d 415 ], and In re Young’s Will, 153 Wis. 337 [ 141 N.W. 226 ], it was held to be a sufficient compliance with this requirement where the signature of the testator followed instead of preceded the attestation clause. 1947Also, in Younger v. Duffie, 94 N.Y. 535 [ 46 Am.Rep. 156 ], McCue v. Turner, 252 Ky. 849 [ 68 S.W.2d 415 ], and In re Young’s Will, 153 Wis. 337 [ 141 N.W. 226 ], it was held to be a sufficient compliance with this requirement where the signature of the testator followed instead of preceded the attestation clause. | 1 | 1947–1947 |
In re the Probate of the Alleged Last Will & Testament of Noon
neutral
1 sentence1947Misc. 484 [ 192 A. 428 ]; In re Noon’s Will, 31 Misc. 420 [65 N.Y.S. *705 568]; In re Eyett’s Will, 124 Misc. 523 [ 209 N.Y.S. 251 ].) In each of "these cases it was held that the signature of the testator, which appeared in the attestation clause, was a sufficient compliance with the requirement for subscription at the end of the will. | 1 | 1947–1947 |
In re Proving the Last Will & Testament of Eyett
green
2 sentences1947Misc. 484 [ 192 A. 428 ]; In re Noon’s Will, 31 Misc. 420 [65 N.Y.S. *705 568]; In re Eyett’s Will, 124 Misc. 523 [ 209 N.Y.S. 251 ].) In each of "these cases it was held that the signature of the testator, which appeared in the attestation clause, was a sufficient compliance with the requirement for subscription at the end of the will. 1947Misc. 484 [ 192 A. 428 ]; In re Noon’s Will, 31 Misc. 420 [65 N.Y.S. *705 568]; In re Eyett’s Will, 124 Misc. 523 [ 209 N.Y.S. 251 ].) In each of "these cases it was held that the signature of the testator, which appeared in the attestation clause, was a sufficient compliance with the requirement for subscription at the end of the will. | 1 | 1947–1947 |
Will of Gale v. Freeman
neutral
2 sentences1947Also, in Younger v. Duffie, 94 N.Y. 535 [ 46 Am.Rep. 156 ], McCue v. Turner, 252 Ky. 849 [ 68 S.W.2d 415 ], and In re Young’s Will, 153 Wis. 337 [ 141 N.W. 226 ], it was held to be a sufficient compliance with this requirement where the signature of the testator followed instead of preceded the attestation clause. 1947Also, in Younger v. Duffie, 94 N.Y. 535 [ 46 Am.Rep. 156 ], McCue v. Turner, 252 Ky. 849 [ 68 S.W.2d 415 ], and In re Young’s Will, 153 Wis. 337 [ 141 N.W. 226 ], it was held to be a sufficient compliance with this requirement where the signature of the testator followed instead of preceded the attestation clause. | 1 | 1947–1947 |
Sidney v. Wilson
green
2 sentences1928The fact that the plaintiff was the equitable owner of the car, coupled with his physical possession thereof at the time it was taken from his custody by defendant, is a sufficient compliance with the rule requiring not merely possession, but a right to possession, in order to maintain the action. {Sidney v. Wilson, 67 Cal. App. 282 [ 227 Pac. 672 ].) Judgment affirmed. 1928The fact that the plaintiff was the equitable owner of the car, coupled with his physical possession thereof at the time it was taken from his custody by defendant, is a sufficient compliance with the rule requiring not merely possession, but a right to possession, in order to maintain the action. {Sidney v. Wilson, 67 Cal. App. 282 [ 227 Pac. 672 ].) Judgment affirmed. | 1 | 1928–1928 |
Boles v. Stiles
green
2 sentences1924In the case of Moody v. Goodwin, 53 Cal. App. 693 [ 200 Pac. 733 ], the legal principle is *287 announced (syllabus) that “a person in the actual and rightful possession of an automobile is entitled to maintain an action in replevin or for conversion thereof, even though upon a transfer to him there was a failure to comply with section 8 of the Motor Vehicle Act (Stats. 1917, p. 391).” To the same effect see Goodman v. Anglo-California Trust Co., 62 Cal. App. 702 [ 217 Pac. 1078 ] ; also, Boles v. Stiles, 188 Cal. 304 [ 204 Pac. 848 ]; Davis v. Cline, 184 Cal. 548 [ 195 Pac. 42 ]. 1924In the case of Moody v. Goodwin, 53 Cal. App. 693 [ 200 Pac. 733 ], the legal principle is *287 announced (syllabus) that “a person in the actual and rightful possession of an automobile is entitled to maintain an action in replevin or for conversion thereof, even though upon a transfer to him there was a failure to comply with section 8 of the Motor Vehicle Act (Stats. 1917, p. 391).” To the same effect see Goodman v. Anglo-California Trust Co., 62 Cal. App. 702 [ 217 Pac. 1078 ] ; also, Boles v. Stiles, 188 Cal. 304 [ 204 Pac. 848 ]; Davis v. Cline, 184 Cal. 548 [ 195 Pac. 42 ]. | 1 | 1924–1924 |
Moody v. Goodwin
green
2 sentences1924In the case of Moody v. Goodwin, 53 Cal. App. 693 [ 200 Pac. 733 ], the legal principle is *287 announced (syllabus) that “a person in the actual and rightful possession of an automobile is entitled to maintain an action in replevin or for conversion thereof, even though upon a transfer to him there was a failure to comply with section 8 of the Motor Vehicle Act (Stats. 1917, p. 391).” To the same effect see Goodman v. Anglo-California Trust Co., 62 Cal. App. 702 [ 217 Pac. 1078 ] ; also, Boles v. Stiles, 188 Cal. 304 [ 204 Pac. 848 ]; Davis v. Cline, 184 Cal. 548 [ 195 Pac. 42 ]. 1924In the case of Moody v. Goodwin, 53 Cal. App. 693 [ 200 Pac. 733 ], the legal principle is *287 announced (syllabus) that “a person in the actual and rightful possession of an automobile is entitled to maintain an action in replevin or for conversion thereof, even though upon a transfer to him there was a failure to comply with section 8 of the Motor Vehicle Act (Stats. 1917, p. 391).” To the same effect see Goodman v. Anglo-California Trust Co., 62 Cal. App. 702 [ 217 Pac. 1078 ] ; also, Boles v. Stiles, 188 Cal. 304 [ 204 Pac. 848 ]; Davis v. Cline, 184 Cal. 548 [ 195 Pac. 42 ]. | 1 | 1924–1924 |
Goodman v. Anglo-California Trust Co.
neutral
2 sentences1924In the case of Moody v. Goodwin, 53 Cal. App. 693 [ 200 Pac. 733 ], the legal principle is *287 announced (syllabus) that “a person in the actual and rightful possession of an automobile is entitled to maintain an action in replevin or for conversion thereof, even though upon a transfer to him there was a failure to comply with section 8 of the Motor Vehicle Act (Stats. 1917, p. 391).” To the same effect see Goodman v. Anglo-California Trust Co., 62 Cal. App. 702 [ 217 Pac. 1078 ] ; also, Boles v. Stiles, 188 Cal. 304 [ 204 Pac. 848 ]; Davis v. Cline, 184 Cal. 548 [ 195 Pac. 42 ]. 1924In the case of Moody v. Goodwin, 53 Cal. App. 693 [ 200 Pac. 733 ], the legal principle is *287 announced (syllabus) that “a person in the actual and rightful possession of an automobile is entitled to maintain an action in replevin or for conversion thereof, even though upon a transfer to him there was a failure to comply with section 8 of the Motor Vehicle Act (Stats. 1917, p. 391).” To the same effect see Goodman v. Anglo-California Trust Co., 62 Cal. App. 702 [ 217 Pac. 1078 ] ; also, Boles v. Stiles, 188 Cal. 304 [ 204 Pac. 848 ]; Davis v. Cline, 184 Cal. 548 [ 195 Pac. 42 ]. | 1 | 1924–1924 |
Davis v. Cline
neutral
2 sentences1924In the case of Moody v. Goodwin, 53 Cal. App. 693 [ 200 Pac. 733 ], the legal principle is *287 announced (syllabus) that “a person in the actual and rightful possession of an automobile is entitled to maintain an action in replevin or for conversion thereof, even though upon a transfer to him there was a failure to comply with section 8 of the Motor Vehicle Act (Stats. 1917, p. 391).” To the same effect see Goodman v. Anglo-California Trust Co., 62 Cal. App. 702 [ 217 Pac. 1078 ] ; also, Boles v. Stiles, 188 Cal. 304 [ 204 Pac. 848 ]; Davis v. Cline, 184 Cal. 548 [ 195 Pac. 42 ]. 1924In the case of Moody v. Goodwin, 53 Cal. App. 693 [ 200 Pac. 733 ], the legal principle is *287 announced (syllabus) that “a person in the actual and rightful possession of an automobile is entitled to maintain an action in replevin or for conversion thereof, even though upon a transfer to him there was a failure to comply with section 8 of the Motor Vehicle Act (Stats. 1917, p. 391).” To the same effect see Goodman v. Anglo-California Trust Co., 62 Cal. App. 702 [ 217 Pac. 1078 ] ; also, Boles v. Stiles, 188 Cal. 304 [ 204 Pac. 848 ]; Davis v. Cline, 184 Cal. 548 [ 195 Pac. 42 ]. | 1 | 1924–1924 |
Watt v. Bradley
green
2 sentences1920Boone, of Modesto, California, one of my attorneys and counsel, and who is an attorney at law in good standing *102 and licensed to practice in all of the courts of the state of California, and who resides as aforesaid in the city of Modesto, county of Stanislaus, state of California, and that after such statement to my said attorney as aforesaid, I am and was advised by my said attorney and verily believe that I have good and substantial defense on the merits to the said action.” That the above is a sufficient compliance with the requirement of the statute clearly appears from Watt v. Bradley 1920Boone, of Modesto, California, one of my attorneys and counsel, and who is an attorney at law in good standing *102 and licensed to practice in all of the courts of the state of California, and who resides as aforesaid in the city of Modesto, county of Stanislaus, state of California, and that after such statement to my said attorney as aforesaid, I am and was advised by my said attorney and verily believe that I have good and substantial defense on the merits to the said action.” That the above is a sufficient compliance with the requirement of the statute clearly appears from Watt v. Bradley | 1 | 1920–1920 |
Nolan v. Mcduffie
green
2 sentences1920Boone, of Modesto, California, one of my attorneys and counsel, and who is an attorney at law in good standing *102 and licensed to practice in all of the courts of the state of California, and who resides as aforesaid in the city of Modesto, county of Stanislaus, state of California, and that after such statement to my said attorney as aforesaid, I am and was advised by my said attorney and verily believe that I have good and substantial defense on the merits to the said action.” That the above is a sufficient compliance with the requirement of the statute clearly appears from Watt v. Bradley 1920Boone, of Modesto, California, one of my attorneys and counsel, and who is an attorney at law in good standing *102 and licensed to practice in all of the courts of the state of California, and who resides as aforesaid in the city of Modesto, county of Stanislaus, state of California, and that after such statement to my said attorney as aforesaid, I am and was advised by my said attorney and verily believe that I have good and substantial defense on the merits to the said action.” That the above is a sufficient compliance with the requirement of the statute clearly appears from Watt v. Bradley | 1 | 1920–1920 |
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.