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.
7 California opinions name it 1 courts 1949–2025 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Petrosyan v. Prince Corp. CA2/8green1 sentence2023(Petrosyan v. Prince Corp. (2013) 223 Cal.App.4th 587, 593, fn. 2 .) Even in such a case, however, the reviewing court must examine the record and reverse only if prejudicial error is found. | 1 | 1 |
Illinois Central Railroad v. Illinoisgreen2 sentences2006Code, §] 1069.) It is certain moreover, that the principle of construction sustained by the weight of recent authority is that. . . . the state is entitled to the benefit of certain well-settled canons of construction that pertain to grants by the state to private persons or corporations, as, for instance, that if there is any ambiguity or uncertainty in the act, that interpretation must be put upon it which is most favorable to the state ....’” (Oakland v. Oakland Water Front Co. (1897) 118 Cal. 160, 175 [ 50 P. 277 ], quoting Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. Illinois (1892) 146 U.S. 387, 468 2006Code, §] 1069.) It is certain moreover, that the principle of construction sustained by the weight of recent authority is that. . . . the state is entitled to the benefit of certain well-settled canons of construction that pertain to grants by the state to private persons or corporations, as, for instance, that if there is any ambiguity or uncertainty in the act, that interpretation must be put upon it which is most favorable to the state ....’” (Oakland v. Oakland Water Front Co. (1897) 118 Cal. 160, 175 [ 50 P. 277 ], quoting Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. Illinois (1892) 146 U.S. 387, 468 | 1 | 1 |
City of Oakland v. Oakland Water Front Co.green2 sentences2006Code, §] 1069.) It is certain moreover, that the principle of construction sustained by the weight of recent authority is that. . . . the state is entitled to the benefit of certain well-settled canons of construction that pertain to grants by the state to private persons or corporations, as, for instance, that if there is any ambiguity or uncertainty in the act, that interpretation must be put upon it which is most favorable to the state ....’” (Oakland v. Oakland Water Front Co. (1897) 118 Cal. 160, 175 [ 50 P. 277 ], quoting Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. Illinois (1892) 146 U.S. 387, 468 2006Code, §] 1069.) It is certain moreover, that the principle of construction sustained by the weight of recent authority is that. . . . the state is entitled to the benefit of certain well-settled canons of construction that pertain to grants by the state to private persons or corporations, as, for instance, that if there is any ambiguity or uncertainty in the act, that interpretation must be put upon it which is most favorable to the state ....’” (Oakland v. Oakland Water Front Co. (1897) 118 Cal. 160, 175 [ 50 P. 277 ], quoting Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. Illinois (1892) 146 U.S. 387, 468 | 1 | 1 |
People v. Hillgreen2 sentences1949Code, § 1096a; People v. Hill, 76 Cal.App.2d 330, 339 [ 173 P.2d 26 ]), no further instruction on the topic was necessary. 1949Code, § 1096a; People v. Hill, 76 Cal.App.2d 330, 339 [ 173 P.2d 26 ]), no further instruction on the topic was necessary. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Fonseca
green
2 sentences2013(Fonseca, supra, 105 Cal.App.4th at p. 548 .) In addition, the Fonseca court noted that even when there was a finding of error as to the earlier version of CALJIC NO. 2.11.5, “in every case where the jury receives all otherwise appropriate general instructions regarding witness credibility, there can be no prejudice from jury 51 “lingering possibility that a reasonable juror would misunderstand his or her duty to consider all relevant factors bearing on witness credibility. 2013(Fonseca, supra, 105 Cal.App.4th at p. 548 .) In addition, the Fonseca court noted that even when there was a finding of error as to the earlier version of CALJIC NO. 2.11.5, “in every case where the jury receives all otherwise appropriate general instructions regarding witness credibility, there can be no prejudice from jury 51 “lingering possibility that a reasonable juror would misunderstand his or her duty to consider all relevant factors bearing on witness credibility. | 2 | 2013–2013 |
In Re Work Uniform Cases
green
1 sentence2025(In re Work Uniform Cases (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 328, 338 .) Under this determination, the court held, an employee’s claim of entitlement to compensation for uniform expenses as indemnification under section 2802 directly conflicts “with a public entity’s power to provide for compensation of its employees . . . .” (Ibid.) In Weil v. Raisin City Elementary School District (E.D. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Hjelm v. Promestheus Real Estate Group CA1/2
green
1 sentence2023(Hjelm v. Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc. (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 1155 , 1165–1166; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(2)(C).) In this case, however, there is a competing rule under which, if the respondent fails to file a respondent’s brief, “the court may decide the appeal on the record, the opening brief, and any oral argument by the appellant.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.220(a)(2).) Under a prior iteration of that rule, courts could accept as true the statement of facts in the appellant’s opening brief in the absence of a respondent’s brief. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Johnson v. Arvin-Edison Water Storage District
green
1 sentence2010The Legislature’s iteration of this rule is an indication that the Legislature follows it.” (Johnson, supra, 174 Cal.App.4th at p. 736 .) Trying the opposite approach, CCPOA alternatively argues that because public employees are specifically excluded from the related Labor Code sections, we should infer that the Legislature intended sections 226.7 and 512 to apply public entities. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
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.