contemplation rule in California

2014It explained: “There can be no dispute that at the time of the events discussed in the challenged publication the plaintiff met the criteria of ‘a public figure.’ ‘Public figures,’ within the contemplation of the rule in New York Times [Co. v. Sullivan, supra, 376 U.S. 254 ], as enlarged by subsequent cases, are ‘those persons who, though not public officials, are “involved in issues in which the public has a justified and important interest”’ and ‘include artists, athletes, business people, dilettantes, anyone who is famous or infamous because of who he is or what he has done.’ Cepeda v. Cowl

2014It explained: “There can be no dispute that at the time of the events discussed in the challenged publication the plaintiff met the criteria of ‘a public figure.’ ‘Public figures,’ within the contemplation of the rule in New York Times [Co. v. Sullivan, supra, 376 U.S. 254 ], as enlarged by subsequent cases, are ‘those persons who, though not public officials, are “involved in issues in which the public has a justified and important interest”’ and ‘include artists, athletes, business people, dilettantes, anyone who is famous or infamous because of who he is or what he has done.’ Cepeda v. Cowl

2014It explained: “There can be no dispute that at the time of the events discussed in the challenged publication the plaintiff met the criteria of ‘a public figure.’ ‘Public figures,’ within the contemplation of the rule in New York Times [Co. v. Sullivan, supra, 376 U.S. 254 ], as enlarged by subsequent cases, are ‘those persons who, though not public officials, are “involved in issues in which the public has a justified and important interest”’ and ‘include artists, athletes, business people, dilettantes, anyone who is famous or infamous because of who he is or what he has done.’ Cepeda v. Cowl

2014It explained: “There can be no dispute that at the time of the events discussed in the challenged publication the plaintiff met the criteria of ‘a public figure.’ ‘Public figures,’ within the contemplation of the rule in New York Times [Co. v. Sullivan, supra, 376 U.S. 254 ], as enlarged by subsequent cases, are ‘those persons who, though not public officials, are “involved in issues in which the public has a justified and important interest”’ and ‘include artists, athletes, business people, dilettantes, anyone who is famous or infamous because of who he is or what he has done.’ Cepeda v. Cowl

2011Huskinson, supra, 32 Cal.4th 453 , reasoned that the award of quantum meruit for services rendered in reliance on the voided fee-sharing agreement would not constitute an action within the contemplation of rule 2-200, and would not undermine compliance with the rules. (32 Cal.4th at pp. 459-460.) We cannot say the same here.

2011Huskinson, supra, 32 Cal.4th 453 , reasoned that the award of quantum meruit for services rendered in reliance on the voided fee-sharing agreement would not constitute an action within the contemplation of rule 2-200, and would not undermine compliance with the rules. (32 Cal.4th at pp. 459-460.) We cannot say the same here.

1985Furthermore, throughout the discusJ-.v." in the commentaries and cases dealing with the claims of those who have been injured through contact with electrical lines, there is the implicit suggestion that electricity, ‘a subtle agency that pervades all space and evades successful definition . . .’ (Ballantine’s Law Dictionary), is not a product within the contemplation of the doctrine’s authors. ” {Farina v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., supra, 438 N.Y.S.2d 645, 646, 647 .) As noted above, the California Supreme Court in Greenman stated that the product liability occurred when an article is placed

1985Furthermore, throughout the discusJ-.v." in the commentaries and cases dealing with the claims of those who have been injured through contact with electrical lines, there is the implicit suggestion that electricity, ‘a subtle agency that pervades all space and evades successful definition . . .’ (Ballantine’s Law Dictionary), is not a product within the contemplation of the doctrine’s authors. ” {Farina v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., supra, 438 N.Y.S.2d 645, 646, 647 .) As noted above, the California Supreme Court in Greenman stated that the product liability occurred when an article is placed

1985Furthermore, throughout the discusJ-.v." in the commentaries and cases dealing with the claims of those who have been injured through contact with electrical lines, there is the implicit suggestion that electricity, ‘a subtle agency that pervades all space and evades successful definition . . .’ (Ballantine’s Law Dictionary), is not a product within the contemplation of the doctrine’s authors. ” {Farina v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., supra, 438 N.Y.S.2d 645, 646, 647 .) As noted above, the California Supreme Court in Greenman stated that the product liability occurred when an article is placed

1940It may be that the result would be deemed to have been modified by the decision of the Supreme Court of that state in Goldstein v. International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union, 328 Pa. 385 [ 196 Atl. 43 ], wherein the court pointed out that the arbitration statute was so worded as to be restricted to cases wherein a judgment at law could be entered and enforced as such.

1940It may be that the result would be deemed to have been modified by the decision of the Supreme Court of that state in Goldstein v. International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union, 328 Pa. 385 [ 196 Atl. 43 ], wherein the court pointed out that the arbitration statute was so worded as to be restricted to cases wherein a judgment at law could be entered and enforced as such.

1936(Reaugh v. Cudahy Packing Co., 189 Cal. 335 [ 208 Pac. 125 ].) In giving this instruction the court stated a recognized principle of law, and it left to the jury the determination of the question of fact whether the conduct of the parties fell within the contemplation of such principle.

1936It was said in Meyers v. Bradford, 54 Cal. App. 157 [ 201 Pac. 471 ], in which an instruction similar to the one here was given, that such an instruction demands the proper attitude of an operator of a motor vehicle. *157 “It suggests a fundamental principle that must he observed in order to avoid illegal injury to another.

1936It was said in Meyers v. Bradford, 54 Cal. App. 157 [ 201 Pac. 471 ], in which an instruction similar to the one here was given, that such an instruction demands the proper attitude of an operator of a motor vehicle. *157 “It suggests a fundamental principle that must he observed in order to avoid illegal injury to another.

1921A. (N. S.) 687, 113 Pac. 366 ], that the power of an appellate court to set aside a verdict on the ground of excessive damages exists only “when the facts are such that the excess appears as a matter of law, or is such as to suggest at first blush, passion, prejudice or corruption on the part of the jury.” Indeed, it is further said in that case that: “Practically the trial court must bear the whole responsibility in every case.” Within the contemplation of this rule it cannot be said that the jury was influenced or controlled by any improper consideration in fixing the amount of damages.