soundness rule (California) · Go Syfert
← California issues

soundness rule in California

57 California opinions name it 2 courts 1895–2013 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.

Followed or applied (26)

CaseFollowedCited
Finnell v. Finnellgreen
cal · 1911 · cited in 3 California opinions naming this issue, 1935–1970
2 sentences

1970It is not necessary that the payment should have been coerced by actual legal proceedings; the mere existence of the legal liability is sufficient.’ [Citation.]” To the same effect is Page v. Podol, 4 Cal.App.2d 229 [ 41 P.2d 167 ], containing a quotation at page 231 from Finnell v. Finnell, 159 Cal. 535, 539 [ 114 P. 820 ]: “The soundness of this doctrine has been upheld by innumerable decisions of courts of the highest authority in many jurisdictions, and it is so obviously just and reasonable that it is matter of wonder that it should ever have been called in question.” *444 Im the instant

1970It is not necessary that the payment should have been coerced by actual legal proceedings; the mere existence of the legal liability is sufficient.’ [Citation.]” To the same effect is Page v. Podol, 4 Cal.App.2d 229 [ 41 P.2d 167 ], containing a quotation at page 231 from Finnell v. Finnell, 159 Cal. 535, 539 [ 114 P. 820 ]: “The soundness of this doctrine has been upheld by innumerable decisions of courts of the highest authority in many jurisdictions, and it is so obviously just and reasonable that it is matter of wonder that it should ever have been called in question.” *444 Im the instant

33
Leaf v. City of San Mateogreen
calctapp · 1984 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1992–1994
2 sentences

1994(E.g., City of Long Beach v. Sten (1929) 206 Cal. 473 [ 274 P. 968 ].) However, in Renfrew v. Loysen (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 1105, 1107-1110 [ 222 Cal.Rptr. 413 ] the court, relying on dictum in CLAM, questioned the soundness of the rule and held that an attorney prosecuting his own contractual claim pro se is entitled to attorney fees under Civil Code section 1717 (pp. 1109-1110; see Hambrose Reserve, Ltd. v. Faitz (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 129, 131 [ 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 638 ]; Leaf v. City of San Mateo (1984) 150 Cal.App.3d 1184, 1187-1189 [ 198 Cal.Rptr. 447 ].) Plaintiff acknowledges that Renfrew invo

1994(E.g., City of Long Beach v. Sten (1929) 206 Cal. 473 [ 274 P. 968 ].) However, in Renfrew v. Loysen (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 1105, 1107-1110 [ 222 Cal.Rptr. 413 ] the court, relying on dictum in CLAM, questioned the soundness of the rule and held that an attorney prosecuting his own contractual claim pro se is entitled to attorney fees under Civil Code section 1717 (pp. 1109-1110; see Hambrose Reserve, Ltd. v. Faitz (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 129, 131 [ 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 638 ]; Leaf v. City of San Mateo (1984) 150 Cal.App.3d 1184, 1187-1189 [ 198 Cal.Rptr. 447 ].) Plaintiff acknowledges that Renfrew invo

22
O'CONNELL v. Zimmermangreen
calctapp · 1958 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1985–1992
2 sentences

1992(City of Long Beach v. Sten (1929) 206 Cal. 473 [ 274 P. 968 ]; Patterson v. Donner (1874) 48 Cal. 369, 380 ; O’Connell v. Zimmerman (1958) 157 Cal.App.2d 330, 337 [ 321 P.2d 161 ]; City of Los Angeles v. Hunt (1935) 8 Cal.App.2d 401, 403-404 [ 47 P.2d 1075 ]; cf. Consumers Lobby Against Monopolies v. Public Utilities Com. (1979) 25 Cal.3d 891, 915, fn. 13 [ 160 Cal.Rptr. 124 , 603 P.2d 41 ].) In Renfrew v. Loysen (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 1105 [ 198 Cal.Rptr. 447 ], the court, relying on dictum in Consumers Lobby Against Monopolies, supra, questioning the soundness of the rule, held an attorney p

1992(City of Long Beach v. Sten (1929) 206 Cal. 473 [ 274 P. 968 ]; Patterson v. Donner (1874) 48 Cal. 369, 380 ; O’Connell v. Zimmerman (1958) 157 Cal.App.2d 330, 337 [ 321 P.2d 161 ]; City of Los Angeles v. Hunt (1935) 8 Cal.App.2d 401, 403-404 [ 47 P.2d 1075 ]; cf. Consumers Lobby Against Monopolies v. Public Utilities Com. (1979) 25 Cal.3d 891, 915, fn. 13 [ 160 Cal.Rptr. 124 , 603 P.2d 41 ].) In Renfrew v. Loysen (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 1105 [ 198 Cal.Rptr. 447 ], the court, relying on dictum in Consumers Lobby Against Monopolies, supra, questioning the soundness of the rule, held an attorney p

22
Collison v. Thomasgreen
cal · 1961 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1963–1966
2 sentences

1966As stated in Collison v. Thomas, 55 Cal.2d 490, 498 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 555 , 360 P.2d 51 ] : '“A party cannot permit an issue to be litigated and on appeal escape the consequences by claiming that such issue was not pleaded.” [Citations.] While the pretrial order now frames the issues remaining in dispute [citation] and in this respect supersedes the pleading [citation], the quoted rule should be equally applicable however the issues are framed.’ [Citation.] “The soundness of this principle is manifest in this case.

1966As stated in Collison v. Thomas, 55 Cal.2d 490, 498 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 555 , 360 P.2d 51 ] : '“A party cannot permit an issue to be litigated and on appeal escape the consequences by claiming that such issue was not pleaded.” [Citations.] While the pretrial order now frames the issues remaining in dispute [citation] and in this respect supersedes the pleading [citation], the quoted rule should be equally applicable however the issues are framed.’ [Citation.] “The soundness of this principle is manifest in this case.

22
East Bay Municipal Utility District v. City of Lodigreen
calctapp · 1932 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1935–1936
2 sentences

1936(East Bay Municipal Utilities Dist. v. Lodi, 120 Cal. App. 740, 748 [ 8 Pac. (2d) 532 ]; Sternes v. Sutter Butte Canal Co., 61 Cal. App. 737 [ 216 Pac. 66 ]; Lewis on Eminent Domain, 1313.) While the soundness of the rule may not be questioned, and while the converse of this rule relied upon by respondent is also well established, to the effect that damages not necessarily included in the issues in the condemnation action may be recovered in a subsequent action, neither rule is helpful in determining what claims are barred and what are not barred by the judgment of condemnation.

1936(East Bay Municipal Utilities Dist. v. Lodi, 120 Cal. App. 740, 748 [ 8 Pac. (2d) 532 ]; Sternes v. Sutter Butte Canal Co., 61 Cal. App. 737 [ 216 Pac. 66 ]; Lewis on Eminent Domain, 1313.) While the soundness of the rule may not be questioned, and while the converse of this rule relied upon by respondent is also well established, to the effect that damages not necessarily included in the issues in the condemnation action may be recovered in a subsequent action, neither rule is helpful in determining what claims are barred and what are not barred by the judgment of condemnation.

22
Renfrew v. Loysengreen
calctapp · 1985 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1992–1994
2 sentences

1994(E.g., City of Long Beach v. Sten (1929) 206 Cal. 473 [ 274 P. 968 ].) However, in Renfrew v. Loysen (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 1105, 1107-1110 [ 222 Cal.Rptr. 413 ] the court, relying on dictum in CLAM, questioned the soundness of the rule and held that an attorney prosecuting his own contractual claim pro se is entitled to attorney fees under Civil Code section 1717 (pp. 1109-1110; see Hambrose Reserve, Ltd. v. Faitz (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 129, 131 [ 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 638 ]; Leaf v. City of San Mateo (1984) 150 Cal.App.3d 1184, 1187-1189 [ 198 Cal.Rptr. 447 ].) Plaintiff acknowledges that Renfrew invo

1994(E.g., City of Long Beach v. Sten (1929) 206 Cal. 473 [ 274 P. 968 ].) However, in Renfrew v. Loysen (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 1105, 1107-1110 [ 222 Cal.Rptr. 413 ] the court, relying on dictum in CLAM, questioned the soundness of the rule and held that an attorney prosecuting his own contractual claim pro se is entitled to attorney fees under Civil Code section 1717 (pp. 1109-1110; see Hambrose Reserve, Ltd. v. Faitz (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 129, 131 [ 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 638 ]; Leaf v. City of San Mateo (1984) 150 Cal.App.3d 1184, 1187-1189 [ 198 Cal.Rptr. 447 ].) Plaintiff acknowledges that Renfrew invo

12
People v. Ansaldogreen
calctapp · 1998 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013
1 sentence

2013(People v. Ansaldo (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1190, 1196 [Fourth Dist., Div. Two] [declining to follow La Fontaine and questioning the soundness of its rule in light of the state Supreme Court’s 1985 decision in People v. Memro, supra, 38 Cal.3d 658 ]; People v. Herman, supra, 97 Cal.App.4th at p. 1387 [concluding, “[w]e do not believe the categorical rule adopted in La Fontaine is sound in its own right or constitutes a correct statement of California law”].) Indeed, since La Fontaine was decided in 1978, the state Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that there is no set standard for distingui

11
People v. Hermangreen
calctapp · 2002 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013
1 sentence

2013(People v. Ansaldo (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1190, 1196 [Fourth Dist., Div. Two] [declining to follow La Fontaine and questioning the soundness of its rule in light of the state Supreme Court’s 1985 decision in People v. Memro, supra, 38 Cal.3d 658 ]; People v. Herman, supra, 97 Cal.App.4th at p. 1387 [concluding, “[w]e do not believe the categorical rule adopted in La Fontaine is sound in its own right or constitutes a correct statement of California law”].) Indeed, since La Fontaine was decided in 1978, the state Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that there is no set standard for distingui

11
In Re Lucasgreen
cal · 2004 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007
2 sentences

2007(See In re Lucas (2004) 33 Cal.4th 682, 720, 719 [ 16 Cal.Rptr.3d 331 , 94 P.3d 477 ] [suggesting that to rebut “evidence of institutional failure and positive character traits,” the prosecution could introduce evidence “that from a very early age, petitioner demonstrated lack of conscience, a propensity for violence, and defiance of authority that did not respond to psychotherapy and that he committed criminal offenses as a juvenile, was subject to temper tantrums and uncontrollable rages as a child, was destructive, and sought only to please himself’].) With regard to argument, as noted, it

2007(See In re Lucas (2004) 33 Cal.4th 682, 720, 719 [ 16 Cal.Rptr.3d 331 , 94 P.3d 477 ] [suggesting that to rebut “evidence of institutional failure and positive character traits,” the prosecution could introduce evidence “that from a very early age, petitioner demonstrated lack of conscience, a propensity for violence, and defiance of authority that did not respond to psychotherapy and that he committed criminal offenses as a juvenile, was subject to temper tantrums and uncontrollable rages as a child, was destructive, and sought only to please himself’].) With regard to argument, as noted, it

11
Schweitzer v. Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'ngreen
calctapp · 1941 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1994–1994
2 sentences

1994Because another person might bear the very name assumed by the impostor and might have *805 some contractual relationships with the impostor does not subject to a loss the drawee bank when it has paid the check to the person intended as the payee.” (Schweitzer v. Bank of America (1941) 42 Cal.App.2d 536, 540 [ 109 P.2d 441 ].

1994Because another person might bear the very name assumed by the impostor and might have *805 some contractual relationships with the impostor does not subject to a loss the drawee bank when it has paid the check to the person intended as the payee.” (Schweitzer v. Bank of America (1941) 42 Cal.App.2d 536, 540 [ 109 P.2d 441 ].

11
Hambrose Reserve, Ltd. v. Faitzgreen
calctapp · 1992 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1994–1994
2 sentences

1994(E.g., City of Long Beach v. Sten (1929) 206 Cal. 473 [ 274 P. 968 ].) However, in Renfrew v. Loysen (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 1105, 1107-1110 [ 222 Cal.Rptr. 413 ] the court, relying on dictum in CLAM, questioned the soundness of the rule and held that an attorney prosecuting his own contractual claim pro se is entitled to attorney fees under Civil Code section 1717 (pp. 1109-1110; see Hambrose Reserve, Ltd. v. Faitz (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 129, 131 [ 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 638 ]; Leaf v. City of San Mateo (1984) 150 Cal.App.3d 1184, 1187-1189 [ 198 Cal.Rptr. 447 ].) Plaintiff acknowledges that Renfrew invo

1994(E.g., City of Long Beach v. Sten (1929) 206 Cal. 473 [ 274 P. 968 ].) However, in Renfrew v. Loysen (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 1105, 1107-1110 [ 222 Cal.Rptr. 413 ] the court, relying on dictum in CLAM, questioned the soundness of the rule and held that an attorney prosecuting his own contractual claim pro se is entitled to attorney fees under Civil Code section 1717 (pp. 1109-1110; see Hambrose Reserve, Ltd. v. Faitz (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 129, 131 [ 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 638 ]; Leaf v. City of San Mateo (1984) 150 Cal.App.3d 1184, 1187-1189 [ 198 Cal.Rptr. 447 ].) Plaintiff acknowledges that Renfrew invo

11
City of Los Angeles v. Huntgreen
calctapp · 1935 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1992–1992
2 sentences

1992(City of Long Beach v. Sten (1929) 206 Cal. 473 [ 274 P. 968 ]; Patterson v. Donner (1874) 48 Cal. 369, 380 ; O’Connell v. Zimmerman (1958) 157 Cal.App.2d 330, 337 [ 321 P.2d 161 ]; City of Los Angeles v. Hunt (1935) 8 Cal.App.2d 401, 403-404 [ 47 P.2d 1075 ]; cf. Consumers Lobby Against Monopolies v. Public Utilities Com. (1979) 25 Cal.3d 891, 915, fn. 13 [ 160 Cal.Rptr. 124 , 603 P.2d 41 ].) In Renfrew v. Loysen (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 1105 [ 198 Cal.Rptr. 447 ], the court, relying on dictum in Consumers Lobby Against Monopolies, supra, questioning the soundness of the rule, held an attorney p

1992(City of Long Beach v. Sten (1929) 206 Cal. 473 [ 274 P. 968 ]; Patterson v. Donner (1874) 48 Cal. 369, 380 ; O’Connell v. Zimmerman (1958) 157 Cal.App.2d 330, 337 [ 321 P.2d 161 ]; City of Los Angeles v. Hunt (1935) 8 Cal.App.2d 401, 403-404 [ 47 P.2d 1075 ]; cf. Consumers Lobby Against Monopolies v. Public Utilities Com. (1979) 25 Cal.3d 891, 915, fn. 13 [ 160 Cal.Rptr. 124 , 603 P.2d 41 ].) In Renfrew v. Loysen (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 1105 [ 198 Cal.Rptr. 447 ], the court, relying on dictum in Consumers Lobby Against Monopolies, supra, questioning the soundness of the rule, held an attorney p

11
Consumers Lobby Against Monopolies v. Public Utilities Commissiongreen
cal · 1979 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1992–1992
2 sentences

1992(City of Long Beach v. Sten (1929) 206 Cal. 473 [ 274 P. 968 ]; Patterson v. Donner (1874) 48 Cal. 369, 380 ; O’Connell v. Zimmerman (1958) 157 Cal.App.2d 330, 337 [ 321 P.2d 161 ]; City of Los Angeles v. Hunt (1935) 8 Cal.App.2d 401, 403-404 [ 47 P.2d 1075 ]; cf. Consumers Lobby Against Monopolies v. Public Utilities Com. (1979) 25 Cal.3d 891, 915, fn. 13 [ 160 Cal.Rptr. 124 , 603 P.2d 41 ].) In Renfrew v. Loysen (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 1105 [ 198 Cal.Rptr. 447 ], the court, relying on dictum in Consumers Lobby Against Monopolies, supra, questioning the soundness of the rule, held an attorney p

1992(City of Long Beach v. Sten (1929) 206 Cal. 473 [ 274 P. 968 ]; Patterson v. Donner (1874) 48 Cal. 369, 380 ; O’Connell v. Zimmerman (1958) 157 Cal.App.2d 330, 337 [ 321 P.2d 161 ]; City of Los Angeles v. Hunt (1935) 8 Cal.App.2d 401, 403-404 [ 47 P.2d 1075 ]; cf. Consumers Lobby Against Monopolies v. Public Utilities Com. (1979) 25 Cal.3d 891, 915, fn. 13 [ 160 Cal.Rptr. 124 , 603 P.2d 41 ].) In Renfrew v. Loysen (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 1105 [ 198 Cal.Rptr. 447 ], the court, relying on dictum in Consumers Lobby Against Monopolies, supra, questioning the soundness of the rule, held an attorney p

11
Moore v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New Yorkgreen
cal · 1928 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1980–1980
11
Solgaard v. Guy F. Atkinson Co.green
cal · 1971 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1977–1977
11
People v. Gonzalesgreen
calctapp · 1955 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1970–1970
11
County of Placer v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.green
cal · 1958 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1970–1970
11
Vesci v. Ingrimgreen
calctapp · 1961 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1963–1963
11
Wilson v. Wilsongreen
calctapp · 1946 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1960–1960
11
Estate of Adamsgreen
calctapp · 1955 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1960–1960
11
Kruckow v. Lessergreen
calctapp · 1952 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1960–1960
11
Sweeley v. Sweeleygreen
cal · 1946 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1953–1953
11
Gouanillou v. Industrial Accident Commissiongreen
cal · 1920 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1946–1946
11
Ex parte Sticegreen
· 1886 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1940–1940
11
In Re Bermangreen
calctapp · 1930 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1940–1940
11
Overend v. Superior Courtgreen
cal · 1900 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1940–1940
11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (54)

CaseCitedYears
City of Long Beach v. Sten green
cal · 1929
2 sentences

1994(E.g., City of Long Beach v. Sten (1929) 206 Cal. 473 [ 274 P. 968 ].) However, in Renfrew v. Loysen (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 1105, 1107-1110 [ 222 Cal.Rptr. 413 ] the court, relying on dictum in CLAM, questioned the soundness of the rule and held that an attorney prosecuting his own contractual claim pro se is entitled to attorney fees under Civil Code section 1717 (pp. 1109-1110; see Hambrose Reserve, Ltd. v. Faitz (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 129, 131 [ 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 638 ]; Leaf v. City of San Mateo (1984) 150 Cal.App.3d 1184, 1187-1189 [ 198 Cal.Rptr. 447 ].) Plaintiff acknowledges that Renfrew invo

1994(E.g., City of Long Beach v. Sten (1929) 206 Cal. 473 [ 274 P. 968 ].) However, in Renfrew v. Loysen (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 1105, 1107-1110 [ 222 Cal.Rptr. 413 ] the court, relying on dictum in CLAM, questioned the soundness of the rule and held that an attorney prosecuting his own contractual claim pro se is entitled to attorney fees under Civil Code section 1717 (pp. 1109-1110; see Hambrose Reserve, Ltd. v. Faitz (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 129, 131 [ 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 638 ]; Leaf v. City of San Mateo (1984) 150 Cal.App.3d 1184, 1187-1189 [ 198 Cal.Rptr. 447 ].) Plaintiff acknowledges that Renfrew invo

21992–1994
Patterson v. Donner green
· 1874
2 sentences

1992(City of Long Beach v. Sten (1929) 206 Cal. 473 [ 274 P. 968 ]; Patterson v. Donner (1874) 48 Cal. 369, 380 ; O’Connell v. Zimmerman (1958) 157 Cal.App.2d 330, 337 [ 321 P.2d 161 ]; City of Los Angeles v. Hunt (1935) 8 Cal.App.2d 401, 403-404 [ 47 P.2d 1075 ]; cf. Consumers Lobby Against Monopolies v. Public Utilities Com. (1979) 25 Cal.3d 891, 915, fn. 13 [ 160 Cal.Rptr. 124 , 603 P.2d 41 ].) In Renfrew v. Loysen (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 1105 [ 198 Cal.Rptr. 447 ], the court, relying on dictum in Consumers Lobby Against Monopolies, supra, questioning the soundness of the rule, held an attorney p

1985We do not think that the stipulation in the mortgage sued on, for counsel fee, can apply where no counsel fee was paid by the plaintiff.” (Patterson v. Donner, supra, at p. 380 .) The rule thus emerged: “When an attorney represents himself in an action he may not recover the reasonable value of his fee, for he has paid no fee nor has he incurred any liability to pay an attorney fee.” (O’Connell v. Zimmerman (1958) 157 Cal.App.2d 330, 337 [ 321 P.2d 161 ].) However, the soundness of this rule has been seriously questioned by the California Supreme Court in a case involving the right of an indiv

21985–1992
Kline v. San Francisco Unified School District green
calctapp · 1940
2 sentences

1957School Dist., 37 Cal.App.2d 252 [ 99 P.2d 314 ]; Norton v. City of Pomona, 5 Cal.2d 54 [ 53 P.2d 952 ]; Johnson v. City of Glendale, supra, [ 12 Cal.App.2d 389 ( 55 P.2d 580 )]; Thompson v. County of Los Angeles, 140 Cal.App. 73 [ 35 P.2d 185 ]; Kahrs v. County of Los Angeles, 28 Cal.App.2d 46 [ 82 P.2d 29 ]; Strath v. City of Santa Rosa, 19 Cal.App.2d 382 [ 65 P.2d 894 ]; Spencer v. City of Calipatria, 9 Cal.App.2d 267 [ 49 P.2d 320 ]; Young v. County of Ventura, 39 Cal.App.2d 732 [ 104 P.2d 102 ]; Kline v. San Francisco U. School Dist., 40 Cal.App.2d 174 [ 104 P.2d 661 ]; Kelso v. Board of E

1957School Dist., 37 Cal.App.2d 252 [ 99 P.2d 314 ]; Norton v. City of Pomona, 5 Cal.2d 54 [ 53 P.2d 952 ]; Johnson v. City of Glendale, supra, [ 12 Cal.App.2d 389 ( 55 P.2d 580 )]; Thompson v. County of Los Angeles, 140 Cal.App. 73 [ 35 P.2d 185 ]; Kahrs v. County of Los Angeles, 28 Cal.App.2d 46 [ 82 P.2d 29 ]; Strath v. City of Santa Rosa, 19 Cal.App.2d 382 [ 65 P.2d 894 ]; Spencer v. City of Calipatria, 9 Cal.App.2d 267 [ 49 P.2d 320 ]; Young v. County of Ventura, 39 Cal.App.2d 732 [ 104 P.2d 102 ]; Kline v. San Francisco U. School Dist., 40 Cal.App.2d 174 [ 104 P.2d 661 ]; Kelso v. Board of E

21941–1957
Kahrs v. County of Los Angeles green
calctapp · 1938
2 sentences

1957School Dist., 37 Cal.App.2d 252 [ 99 P.2d 314 ]; Norton v. City of Pomona, 5 Cal.2d 54 [ 53 P.2d 952 ]; Johnson v. City of Glendale, supra, [ 12 Cal.App.2d 389 ( 55 P.2d 580 )]; Thompson v. County of Los Angeles, 140 Cal.App. 73 [ 35 P.2d 185 ]; Kahrs v. County of Los Angeles, 28 Cal.App.2d 46 [ 82 P.2d 29 ]; Strath v. City of Santa Rosa, 19 Cal.App.2d 382 [ 65 P.2d 894 ]; Spencer v. City of Calipatria, 9 Cal.App.2d 267 [ 49 P.2d 320 ]; Young v. County of Ventura, 39 Cal.App.2d 732 [ 104 P.2d 102 ]; Kline v. San Francisco U. School Dist., 40 Cal.App.2d 174 [ 104 P.2d 661 ]; Kelso v. Board of E

1957School Dist., 37 Cal.App.2d 252 [ 99 P.2d 314 ]; Norton v. City of Pomona, 5 Cal.2d 54 [ 53 P.2d 952 ]; Johnson v. City of Glendale, supra, [ 12 Cal.App.2d 389 ( 55 P.2d 580 )]; Thompson v. County of Los Angeles, 140 Cal.App. 73 [ 35 P.2d 185 ]; Kahrs v. County of Los Angeles, 28 Cal.App.2d 46 [ 82 P.2d 29 ]; Strath v. City of Santa Rosa, 19 Cal.App.2d 382 [ 65 P.2d 894 ]; Spencer v. City of Calipatria, 9 Cal.App.2d 267 [ 49 P.2d 320 ]; Young v. County of Ventura, 39 Cal.App.2d 732 [ 104 P.2d 102 ]; Kline v. San Francisco U. School Dist., 40 Cal.App.2d 174 [ 104 P.2d 661 ]; Kelso v. Board of E

21941–1957
Kelso v. Board of Education green
calctapp · 1941
2 sentences

1957School Dist., 37 Cal.App.2d 252 [ 99 P.2d 314 ]; Norton v. City of Pomona, 5 Cal.2d 54 [ 53 P.2d 952 ]; Johnson v. City of Glendale, supra, [ 12 Cal.App.2d 389 ( 55 P.2d 580 )]; Thompson v. County of Los Angeles, 140 Cal.App. 73 [ 35 P.2d 185 ]; Kahrs v. County of Los Angeles, 28 Cal.App.2d 46 [ 82 P.2d 29 ]; Strath v. City of Santa Rosa, 19 Cal.App.2d 382 [ 65 P.2d 894 ]; Spencer v. City of Calipatria, 9 Cal.App.2d 267 [ 49 P.2d 320 ]; Young v. County of Ventura, 39 Cal.App.2d 732 [ 104 P.2d 102 ]; Kline v. San Francisco U. School Dist., 40 Cal.App.2d 174 [ 104 P.2d 661 ]; Kelso v. Board of E

1957School Dist., 37 Cal.App.2d 252 [ 99 P.2d 314 ]; Norton v. City of Pomona, 5 Cal.2d 54 [ 53 P.2d 952 ]; Johnson v. City of Glendale, supra, [ 12 Cal.App.2d 389 ( 55 P.2d 580 )]; Thompson v. County of Los Angeles, 140 Cal.App. 73 [ 35 P.2d 185 ]; Kahrs v. County of Los Angeles, 28 Cal.App.2d 46 [ 82 P.2d 29 ]; Strath v. City of Santa Rosa, 19 Cal.App.2d 382 [ 65 P.2d 894 ]; Spencer v. City of Calipatria, 9 Cal.App.2d 267 [ 49 P.2d 320 ]; Young v. County of Ventura, 39 Cal.App.2d 732 [ 104 P.2d 102 ]; Kline v. San Francisco U. School Dist., 40 Cal.App.2d 174 [ 104 P.2d 661 ]; Kelso v. Board of E

21941–1957
Thompson v. County of Los Angeles green
calctapp · 1934
2 sentences

1957School Dist., 37 Cal.App.2d 252 [ 99 P.2d 314 ]; Norton v. City of Pomona, 5 Cal.2d 54 [ 53 P.2d 952 ]; Johnson v. City of Glendale, supra, [ 12 Cal.App.2d 389 ( 55 P.2d 580 )]; Thompson v. County of Los Angeles, 140 Cal.App. 73 [ 35 P.2d 185 ]; Kahrs v. County of Los Angeles, 28 Cal.App.2d 46 [ 82 P.2d 29 ]; Strath v. City of Santa Rosa, 19 Cal.App.2d 382 [ 65 P.2d 894 ]; Spencer v. City of Calipatria, 9 Cal.App.2d 267 [ 49 P.2d 320 ]; Young v. County of Ventura, 39 Cal.App.2d 732 [ 104 P.2d 102 ]; Kline v. San Francisco U. School Dist., 40 Cal.App.2d 174 [ 104 P.2d 661 ]; Kelso v. Board of E

1957School Dist., 37 Cal.App.2d 252 [ 99 P.2d 314 ]; Norton v. City of Pomona, 5 Cal.2d 54 [ 53 P.2d 952 ]; Johnson v. City of Glendale, supra, [ 12 Cal.App.2d 389 ( 55 P.2d 580 )]; Thompson v. County of Los Angeles, 140 Cal.App. 73 [ 35 P.2d 185 ]; Kahrs v. County of Los Angeles, 28 Cal.App.2d 46 [ 82 P.2d 29 ]; Strath v. City of Santa Rosa, 19 Cal.App.2d 382 [ 65 P.2d 894 ]; Spencer v. City of Calipatria, 9 Cal.App.2d 267 [ 49 P.2d 320 ]; Young v. County of Ventura, 39 Cal.App.2d 732 [ 104 P.2d 102 ]; Kline v. San Francisco U. School Dist., 40 Cal.App.2d 174 [ 104 P.2d 661 ]; Kelso v. Board of E

21941–1957
Spencer v. City of Calipatria green
calctapp · 1935
2 sentences

1957School Dist., 37 Cal.App.2d 252 [ 99 P.2d 314 ]; Norton v. City of Pomona, 5 Cal.2d 54 [ 53 P.2d 952 ]; Johnson v. City of Glendale, supra, [ 12 Cal.App.2d 389 ( 55 P.2d 580 )]; Thompson v. County of Los Angeles, 140 Cal.App. 73 [ 35 P.2d 185 ]; Kahrs v. County of Los Angeles, 28 Cal.App.2d 46 [ 82 P.2d 29 ]; Strath v. City of Santa Rosa, 19 Cal.App.2d 382 [ 65 P.2d 894 ]; Spencer v. City of Calipatria, 9 Cal.App.2d 267 [ 49 P.2d 320 ]; Young v. County of Ventura, 39 Cal.App.2d 732 [ 104 P.2d 102 ]; Kline v. San Francisco U. School Dist., 40 Cal.App.2d 174 [ 104 P.2d 661 ]; Kelso v. Board of E

1957School Dist., 37 Cal.App.2d 252 [ 99 P.2d 314 ]; Norton v. City of Pomona, 5 Cal.2d 54 [ 53 P.2d 952 ]; Johnson v. City of Glendale, supra, [ 12 Cal.App.2d 389 ( 55 P.2d 580 )]; Thompson v. County of Los Angeles, 140 Cal.App. 73 [ 35 P.2d 185 ]; Kahrs v. County of Los Angeles, 28 Cal.App.2d 46 [ 82 P.2d 29 ]; Strath v. City of Santa Rosa, 19 Cal.App.2d 382 [ 65 P.2d 894 ]; Spencer v. City of Calipatria, 9 Cal.App.2d 267 [ 49 P.2d 320 ]; Young v. County of Ventura, 39 Cal.App.2d 732 [ 104 P.2d 102 ]; Kline v. San Francisco U. School Dist., 40 Cal.App.2d 174 [ 104 P.2d 661 ]; Kelso v. Board of E

21941–1957
Strath v. City of Santa Rosa neutral
calctapp · 1937
2 sentences

1957School Dist., 37 Cal.App.2d 252 [ 99 P.2d 314 ]; Norton v. City of Pomona, 5 Cal.2d 54 [ 53 P.2d 952 ]; Johnson v. City of Glendale, supra, [ 12 Cal.App.2d 389 ( 55 P.2d 580 )]; Thompson v. County of Los Angeles, 140 Cal.App. 73 [ 35 P.2d 185 ]; Kahrs v. County of Los Angeles, 28 Cal.App.2d 46 [ 82 P.2d 29 ]; Strath v. City of Santa Rosa, 19 Cal.App.2d 382 [ 65 P.2d 894 ]; Spencer v. City of Calipatria, 9 Cal.App.2d 267 [ 49 P.2d 320 ]; Young v. County of Ventura, 39 Cal.App.2d 732 [ 104 P.2d 102 ]; Kline v. San Francisco U. School Dist., 40 Cal.App.2d 174 [ 104 P.2d 661 ]; Kelso v. Board of E

1957School Dist., 37 Cal.App.2d 252 [ 99 P.2d 314 ]; Norton v. City of Pomona, 5 Cal.2d 54 [ 53 P.2d 952 ]; Johnson v. City of Glendale, supra, [ 12 Cal.App.2d 389 ( 55 P.2d 580 )]; Thompson v. County of Los Angeles, 140 Cal.App. 73 [ 35 P.2d 185 ]; Kahrs v. County of Los Angeles, 28 Cal.App.2d 46 [ 82 P.2d 29 ]; Strath v. City of Santa Rosa, 19 Cal.App.2d 382 [ 65 P.2d 894 ]; Spencer v. City of Calipatria, 9 Cal.App.2d 267 [ 49 P.2d 320 ]; Young v. County of Ventura, 39 Cal.App.2d 732 [ 104 P.2d 102 ]; Kline v. San Francisco U. School Dist., 40 Cal.App.2d 174 [ 104 P.2d 661 ]; Kelso v. Board of E

21941–1957
Young v. County of Ventura green
calctapp · 1940
2 sentences

1957School Dist., 37 Cal.App.2d 252 [ 99 P.2d 314 ]; Norton v. City of Pomona, 5 Cal.2d 54 [ 53 P.2d 952 ]; Johnson v. City of Glendale, supra, [ 12 Cal.App.2d 389 ( 55 P.2d 580 )]; Thompson v. County of Los Angeles, 140 Cal.App. 73 [ 35 P.2d 185 ]; Kahrs v. County of Los Angeles, 28 Cal.App.2d 46 [ 82 P.2d 29 ]; Strath v. City of Santa Rosa, 19 Cal.App.2d 382 [ 65 P.2d 894 ]; Spencer v. City of Calipatria, 9 Cal.App.2d 267 [ 49 P.2d 320 ]; Young v. County of Ventura, 39 Cal.App.2d 732 [ 104 P.2d 102 ]; Kline v. San Francisco U. School Dist., 40 Cal.App.2d 174 [ 104 P.2d 661 ]; Kelso v. Board of E

1957School Dist., 37 Cal.App.2d 252 [ 99 P.2d 314 ]; Norton v. City of Pomona, 5 Cal.2d 54 [ 53 P.2d 952 ]; Johnson v. City of Glendale, supra, [ 12 Cal.App.2d 389 ( 55 P.2d 580 )]; Thompson v. County of Los Angeles, 140 Cal.App. 73 [ 35 P.2d 185 ]; Kahrs v. County of Los Angeles, 28 Cal.App.2d 46 [ 82 P.2d 29 ]; Strath v. City of Santa Rosa, 19 Cal.App.2d 382 [ 65 P.2d 894 ]; Spencer v. City of Calipatria, 9 Cal.App.2d 267 [ 49 P.2d 320 ]; Young v. County of Ventura, 39 Cal.App.2d 732 [ 104 P.2d 102 ]; Kline v. San Francisco U. School Dist., 40 Cal.App.2d 174 [ 104 P.2d 661 ]; Kelso v. Board of E

21941–1957
Norton v. City of Pomona green
cal · 1935
2 sentences

1957School Dist., 37 Cal.App.2d 252 [ 99 P.2d 314 ]; Norton v. City of Pomona, 5 Cal.2d 54 [ 53 P.2d 952 ]; Johnson v. City of Glendale, supra, [ 12 Cal.App.2d 389 ( 55 P.2d 580 )]; Thompson v. County of Los Angeles, 140 Cal.App. 73 [ 35 P.2d 185 ]; Kahrs v. County of Los Angeles, 28 Cal.App.2d 46 [ 82 P.2d 29 ]; Strath v. City of Santa Rosa, 19 Cal.App.2d 382 [ 65 P.2d 894 ]; Spencer v. City of Calipatria, 9 Cal.App.2d 267 [ 49 P.2d 320 ]; Young v. County of Ventura, 39 Cal.App.2d 732 [ 104 P.2d 102 ]; Kline v. San Francisco U. School Dist., 40 Cal.App.2d 174 [ 104 P.2d 661 ]; Kelso v. Board of E

1957School Dist., 37 Cal.App.2d 252 [ 99 P.2d 314 ]; Norton v. City of Pomona, 5 Cal.2d 54 [ 53 P.2d 952 ]; Johnson v. City of Glendale, supra, [ 12 Cal.App.2d 389 ( 55 P.2d 580 )]; Thompson v. County of Los Angeles, 140 Cal.App. 73 [ 35 P.2d 185 ]; Kahrs v. County of Los Angeles, 28 Cal.App.2d 46 [ 82 P.2d 29 ]; Strath v. City of Santa Rosa, 19 Cal.App.2d 382 [ 65 P.2d 894 ]; Spencer v. City of Calipatria, 9 Cal.App.2d 267 [ 49 P.2d 320 ]; Young v. County of Ventura, 39 Cal.App.2d 732 [ 104 P.2d 102 ]; Kline v. San Francisco U. School Dist., 40 Cal.App.2d 174 [ 104 P.2d 661 ]; Kelso v. Board of E

21941–1957
Wicklund v. Plymouth Elementary School District green
calctapp · 1940
2 sentences

1957School Dist., 37 Cal.App.2d 252 [ 99 P.2d 314 ]; Norton v. City of Pomona, 5 Cal.2d 54 [ 53 P.2d 952 ]; Johnson v. City of Glendale, supra, [ 12 Cal.App.2d 389 ( 55 P.2d 580 )]; Thompson v. County of Los Angeles, 140 Cal.App. 73 [ 35 P.2d 185 ]; Kahrs v. County of Los Angeles, 28 Cal.App.2d 46 [ 82 P.2d 29 ]; Strath v. City of Santa Rosa, 19 Cal.App.2d 382 [ 65 P.2d 894 ]; Spencer v. City of Calipatria, 9 Cal.App.2d 267 [ 49 P.2d 320 ]; Young v. County of Ventura, 39 Cal.App.2d 732 [ 104 P.2d 102 ]; Kline v. San Francisco U. School Dist., 40 Cal.App.2d 174 [ 104 P.2d 661 ]; Kelso v. Board of E

1957School Dist., 37 Cal.App.2d 252 [ 99 P.2d 314 ]; Norton v. City of Pomona, 5 Cal.2d 54 [ 53 P.2d 952 ]; Johnson v. City of Glendale, supra, [ 12 Cal.App.2d 389 ( 55 P.2d 580 )]; Thompson v. County of Los Angeles, 140 Cal.App. 73 [ 35 P.2d 185 ]; Kahrs v. County of Los Angeles, 28 Cal.App.2d 46 [ 82 P.2d 29 ]; Strath v. City of Santa Rosa, 19 Cal.App.2d 382 [ 65 P.2d 894 ]; Spencer v. City of Calipatria, 9 Cal.App.2d 267 [ 49 P.2d 320 ]; Young v. County of Ventura, 39 Cal.App.2d 732 [ 104 P.2d 102 ]; Kline v. San Francisco U. School Dist., 40 Cal.App.2d 174 [ 104 P.2d 661 ]; Kelso v. Board of E

21941–1957
Sternes v. Sutter Butte Canal Co. green
calctapp · 1923
2 sentences

1936(East Bay Municipal Utilities Dist. v. Lodi, 120 Cal. App. 740, 748 [ 8 Pac. (2d) 532 ]; Sternes v. Sutter Butte Canal Co., 61 Cal. App. 737 [ 216 Pac. 66 ]; Lewis on Eminent Domain, 1313.) While the soundness of the rule may not be questioned, and while the converse of this rule relied upon by respondent is also well established, to the effect that damages not necessarily included in the issues in the condemnation action may be recovered in a subsequent action, neither rule is helpful in determining what claims are barred and what are not barred by the judgment of condemnation.

1936(East Bay Municipal Utilities Dist. v. Lodi, 120 Cal. App. 740, 748 [ 8 Pac. (2d) 532 ]; Sternes v. Sutter Butte Canal Co., 61 Cal. App. 737 [ 216 Pac. 66 ]; Lewis on Eminent Domain, 1313.) While the soundness of the rule may not be questioned, and while the converse of this rule relied upon by respondent is also well established, to the effect that damages not necessarily included in the issues in the condemnation action may be recovered in a subsequent action, neither rule is helpful in determining what claims are barred and what are not barred by the judgment of condemnation.

21935–1936
People v. Memro green
cal · 1985
2 sentences

2013(People v. Ansaldo (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1190, 1196 [Fourth Dist., Div. Two] [declining to follow La Fontaine and questioning the soundness of its rule in light of the state Supreme Court’s 1985 decision in People v. Memro, supra, 38 Cal.3d 658 ]; People v. Herman, supra, 97 Cal.App.4th at p. 1387 [concluding, “[w]e do not believe the categorical rule adopted in La Fontaine is sound in its own right or constitutes a correct statement of California law”].) Indeed, since La Fontaine was decided in 1978, the state Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that there is no set standard for distingui

2013(People v. Ansaldo (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1190, 1196 [Fourth Dist., Div. Two] [declining to follow La Fontaine and questioning the soundness of its rule in light of the state Supreme Court’s 1985 decision in People v. Memro, supra, 38 Cal.3d 658 ]; People v. Herman, supra, 97 Cal.App.4th at p. 1387 [concluding, “[w]e do not believe the categorical rule adopted in La Fontaine is sound in its own right or constitutes a correct statement of California law”].) Indeed, since La Fontaine was decided in 1978, the state Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that there is no set standard for distingui

12013–2013
Blackwell v. American Film Co. green
cal · 1922
2 sentences

2013(Id. at p. 693.) Mrs. Blackwell then brought a wrongful death action and recovered $10,000. ( Blackwell, supra, 189 Cal. at pp. 692-693.) On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial court erred in refusing to give two instructions to the effect that the jury, in estimating damages, “could consider the physical condition of [the] decedent immediately prior to his last operation, in determining the probable amount of financial assistance he would have rendered to his widow and children.” (Id. at p. 702, italics added.) The court rejected the defendant’s argument because the jury had been inst

2013(Ibid.) The court said, “The question in this case was what pecuniary loss was suffered by respondent and her children by reason of the loss of decedent in his crippled condition.” (Id. at p. 697.) The court added, “[A]s already pointed out, decedent was fully compensated for the injuries sustained by him and for his resulting physical incapacity and in estimating the pecuniary loss resulting to [Mrs. Blackwell] by virtue of his death it was necessary to take into consideration his crippled condition.” (Id. at p. 702.) Philip Morris concludes from Blackwell, supra, 189 Cal. 689 , that “where t

12013–2013
Lyle v. WARNER BROTHERS TELEVISION PRODUCTION green
cal · 2004
1 sentence

2007(See In re Lucas (2004) 33 Cal.4th 682, 720, 719 [ 16 Cal.Rptr.3d 331 , 94 P.3d 477 ] [suggesting that to rebut “evidence of institutional failure and positive character traits,” the prosecution could introduce evidence “that from a very early age, petitioner demonstrated lack of conscience, a propensity for violence, and defiance of authority that did not respond to psychotherapy and that he committed criminal offenses as a juvenile, was subject to temper tantrums and uncontrollable rages as a child, was destructive, and sought only to please himself’].) With regard to argument, as noted, it

12007–2007
People v. Smith green
cal · 2003
1 sentence

2007(See People v. Smith, supra, 30 Cal.4th 581, 635 .) f.

12007–2007
State v. Brown green
nd · 1983
2 sentences

1984(State v. Brown (N.D. 1983) supra, 337 N.W.2d 138, 149 .) The soundness of an exception for prehypnotic evidence has already been questioned in the scientific community. 46 The proposed exception has also been vigorously attacked in the scholarly literature.

1984Indeed, one of those opinions itself criticizes the proposed exception for prehypnotic evidence as "difficult to reconcile" with the rule barring the testimony of a witness who has been subjected to pretrial hypnosis. ( State v. Brown (N.D. 1983) supra, 337 N.W.2d 138, 149 .) The soundness of an exception for prehypnotic evidence has already been questioned in the scientific community. [46] The proposed exception has also been vigorously attacked in the scholarly literature.

11984–1984
Page v. Podol green
calctapp · 1935
11970–1970
In Re Anderson green
calctapp · 1951
11970–1970
Foley v. Martin green
cal · 1904
11970–1970
Falk v. Falk green
calctapp · 1941
11960–1960
Kollert v. Cundiff green
cal · 1958
11959–1959
Johnson v. City of Glendale green
calctapp · 1936
11957–1957
Estate of McSweeney green
calctapp · 1951
11952–1952
In Re Estate of Wineteer green
cal · 1917
11947–1947
People v. Settles green
calctapp · 1938
11947–1947
People v. Vasquez green
calctapp · 1928
11947–1947
People v. Roe green
cal · 1922
11947–1947
Douillard v. Woodd green
cal · 1942
11947–1947
Pearson v. Parsons green
cal · 1916
11942–1942
Estate of Emerson green
cal · 1917
11942–1942
Kester v. McNear green
cal · 1928
11941–1941
State ex rel. Brison v. Lingo neutral
mo · 1858
11935–1935
Searcy v. Grow green
cal · 1860
11935–1935
Jeffers v. Easton, Eldridge & Co. green
cal · 1896
11935–1935
Fresno Investment Co. v. Brandon green
calctapp · 1926
11935–1935
Huddleston v. Washington green
cal · 1902
11935–1935
Barr Lumber Co. v. Perkins neutral
cal · 1931
11935–1935
Stamford Extract Manufacturing Co. v. Stamford Rolling Mills Co. green
conn · 1924
11930–1930
McDonough v. Russell-Miller Milling Co. green
nd · 1917
11930–1930

Where else courts name it

CA 57 (1895–2013) NY 42 (1840–2004) TX 38 (1882–2013) KY 29 (1843–1979) MO 28 (1878–1993) AL 24 (1882–2016) PA 22 (1835–1981) LA 17 (1907–1995) IL 16 (1895–2010) GA 16 (1898–2025) IN 14 (1855–2000) NC 13 (1910–2010) MI 13 (1891–2017) KS 11 (1898–2024) NE 11 (1894–1968) OK 10 (1901–1944) FL 10 (1895–1971) NM 10 (1912–2015) TN 10 (1903–1983) NJ 9 (1852–1984) MD 9 (1922–2023) WA 8 (1909–1938) SC 8 (1916–2023) AR 8 (1907–1997) IA 8 (1873–1961) CT 7 (1976–2019) OR 7 (1893–1974) OH 7 (1916–2018) RI 6 (1925–2011) ND 6 (1892–1989) MA 6 (1818–1943) SD 5 (1907–1925) WV 5 (1905–1950) WI 5 (1882–2005) WY 4 (1919–1995) MT 4 (1923–1937) VT 4 (1898–1914) AZ 3 (1893–1961) DE 3 (1927–2019) ME 3 (1830–1897) MN 3 (1896–1946) MS 3 (1877–1965) ID 2 (1930–2026) HI 2 (1978–2002) UT 2 (1961–1980)

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