law supports claim in California

8 California opinions name it 2 courts 2013–2025 3 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.

Followed or applied (6)

Case	Followed	Cited
Margolin v. Shemariagreen calctapp · 2000 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 2013–2014 2 sentences 2014(Margolin v. Shemaria (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 891, 895 [ 102 Cal.Rptr.2d 502 ]; see Woods v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 571, 576 [ 75 Cal.Rptr.3d 748 ].) The issue, therefore, is whether there was evidence that would support that State Farm had a duty to defend. 2014(Margolin v. Shemaria (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 891, 895 [ 102 Cal.Rptr.2d 502 ]; see Woods v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 571, 576 [ 75 Cal.Rptr.3d 748 ].) The issue, therefore, is whether there was evidence that would support that State Farm had a duty to defend.	1	2
Paterno v. Stategreen calctapp · 1999 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025 1 sentence 2025The power to grant a directed verdict “ ‘exists in favor of the defendant where there is no substantial evidence tending to prove all the controverted facts necessary to establish the plaintiff’s case.’ ” (Paterno v. State of California (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 68, 102 (Paterno).) “On appeal, we decide de novo ‘whether sufficient evidence was presented to withstand a directed verdict. [Citation.] In that sense, we stand in the shoes of the trial court.’ [Citation.] And we will reverse if there was substantial evidence tending to prove appellants’ case and the state of the law supports the claim.”	1	1
Design Built Sys. v. Sorokinegreen calctapp5d · 2019 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024 1 sentence 2024(See Design, supra, 32 Cal.App.5th at p. 686 [“ ‘And we will reverse [a directed verdict] if there was substantial evidence tending to prove appellants’ case and the state of the law supports the claim. [Citations.]’ ”].) DISPOSITION The judgment granting nonsuit and directed verdict to MTS is reversed as to plaintiffs’ theory that the platform was a dangerous condition of MTS’s property.	1	1
Windsor Pacific LLC v. Samwood Co.green calctapp · 2013 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016 1 sentence 2016Co. (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 902, 920 .) 15 "A prescriptive easement is established by use of land that is (1) open and notorious, (2) continuous and uninterrupted, and (3) adverse to the true owner, and that is all of these things (4) for a period of five years." (Windsor Pacific LLC v. Samwood Co., Inc. (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 263, 270 (Windsor); Civ.	1	1
Woods v. Union Pacific Railroadgreen calctapp · 2008 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 2 sentences 2014(Margolin v. Shemaria (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 891, 895 [ 102 Cal.Rptr.2d 502 ]; see Woods v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 571, 576 [ 75 Cal.Rptr.3d 748 ].) The issue, therefore, is whether there was evidence that would support that State Farm had a duty to defend. 2014(Margolin v. Shemaria (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 891, 895 [ 102 Cal.Rptr.2d 502 ]; see Woods v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 571, 576 [ 75 Cal.Rptr.3d 748 ].) The issue, therefore, is whether there was evidence that would support that State Farm had a duty to defend.	1	1
Gelfo v. Lockheed Martin Corporationgreen calctapp · 2006 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 2 sentences 2014On appeal, we decide de novo “whether sufficient evidence was presented to withstand a directed verdict. [Citation.] In that sense, we stand in the shoes of the trial court.” (Gelfo v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 34, 46-47 [ 43 Cal.Rptr.3d 874 ].) And we will reverse if there was substantial evidence tending to prove appellants’ case and the state of the law supports the claim. 2014On appeal, we decide de novo “whether sufficient evidence was presented to withstand a directed verdict. [Citation.] In that sense, we stand in the shoes of the trial court.” (Gelfo v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 34, 46-47 [ 43 Cal.Rptr.3d 874 ].) And we will reverse if there was substantial evidence tending to prove appellants’ case and the state of the law supports the claim.	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (4)

Case	Cited	Years
North Counties Engineering, Inc. v. State Farm General Insurance green calctapp · 2014 2 sentences 2019"On appeal, we decide de novo 'whether sufficient evidence was presented to withstand a directed verdict. [Citation.] In that sense, we stand in the shoes of the trial court.' [Citation.] And we will reverse if there was substantial evidence tending to prove appellants' case and the state of the law supports the claim. [Citations.]" ( North Counties, supra, 224 Cal.App.4th at pp. 919-920, 169 Cal.Rptr.3d 726 .) 3 It is, of course, the fact that most motions for directed verdict are made by defendants, that is, the party that does not have the burden of proof. 2019"On appeal, we decide de novo 'whether sufficient evidence was presented to withstand a directed verdict. [Citation.] In that sense, we stand in the shoes of the trial court.' [Citation.] And we will reverse if there was substantial evidence tending to prove appellants' case and the state of the law supports the claim. [Citations.]" ( North Counties, supra, 224 Cal.App.4th at pp. 919-920, 169 Cal.Rptr.3d 726 .) 3 It is, of course, the fact that most motions for directed verdict are made by defendants, that is, the party that does not have the burden of proof.	5	2016–2025
Starrh and Starrh Cotton Growers v. Aera Energy LLC green calctapp · 2007 1 sentence 2016A court may remove an issue of fact from the jury and direct a verdict on the issue if there is "no evidence tending to prove the case of the party opposing the motion [for directed verdict]." (Starrh & Starrh Cotton Growers v. Aera Energy LLC (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 583, 597 .) In reviewing the issue on appeal, "we stand in the shoes of the trial court" and "will reverse if there was substantial evidence tending to prove appellant['s] case and the state of the law supports the claim." (North Counties Engineering, Inc. v. State Farm General Ins.	1	2016–2016
Huffman v. City of Poway green calctapp · 2000 1 sentence 2013(Margolin, supra, 85 Cal.App.4th at p. 895 ; Salas v. California Dept. of Transportation (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1058, 1067-1070 .) “Whether the condition of property posed a substantial risk of injury to foreseeable users exercising due care is an objective standard and is measured by the risk posed to an ordinary foreseeable user.” (Huffman v. City of Poway (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 975, 992 .) The substantiality of the risk addresses the likelihood that an injury will occur, not the extent of any such injury.	1	2013–2013
Salas v. Department of Transportation green calctapp · 2011 1 sentence 2013(Margolin, supra, 85 Cal.App.4th at p. 895 ; Salas v. California Dept. of Transportation (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1058, 1067-1070 .) “Whether the condition of property posed a substantial risk of injury to foreseeable users exercising due care is an objective standard and is measured by the risk posed to an ordinary foreseeable user.” (Huffman v. City of Poway (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 975, 992 .) The substantiality of the risk addresses the likelihood that an injury will occur, not the extent of any such injury.	1	2013–2013

Where else courts name it

MO 50 (2008–2025) CA 8 (2013–2025) GA 2 (2014–2014)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check