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 1935–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Inglewood Teachers Ass'n. v. Public Employment Relations Boardgreen2 sentences2022(See Inglewood Teachers Assn. v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 767, 780 [burden of proving agency rests on party asserting its existence].) The law indulges in no presumption that an agency 17 exists, but instead presumes that a person is acting for himself or herself and not as an agent of another. 1999(Inglewood Teachers Assn. v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 767, 780 [ 278 Cal.Rptr. 228 ].) Moreover, it was held in J. | 2 | 2 |
Walsh v. American Trust Co.green2 sentences1968(Brokaw v. Black-Foxe Military Institute (1951), supra; Associated Creditors’ Agency v. Haley Land Co. (1966) 239 Cal.App.2d 610, 614 [ 49 Cal.Rptr. 1 ]; Vargas v. Ruggiero (1961), supra.) The burden of proving an agency in this case was upon the plaintiff. 1 ‘ The law indulges in no presumption that an agency exists but instead presumes that a person is acting for himself and not as agent for another.” (Walsh v. American Trust Co. (1935) 7 Cal.App.2d 654, 659 [ 47 P.2d 323 ]; see also, D’Acquisto v. Evola (1949), supra, 90 Cal.App.2d 210, 213 ; Hathaway v. Siskiyou etc. School Dist. (1944) 66 1968(Brokaw v. Black-Foxe Military Institute (1951), supra; Associated Creditors’ Agency v. Haley Land Co. (1966) 239 Cal.App.2d 610, 614 [ 49 Cal.Rptr. 1 ]; Vargas v. Ruggiero (1961), supra.) The burden of proving an agency in this case was upon the plaintiff. 1 ‘ The law indulges in no presumption that an agency exists but instead presumes that a person is acting for himself and not as agent for another.” (Walsh v. American Trust Co. (1935) 7 Cal.App.2d 654, 659 [ 47 P.2d 323 ]; see also, D’Acquisto v. Evola (1949), supra, 90 Cal.App.2d 210, 213 ; Hathaway v. Siskiyou etc. School Dist. (1944) 66 | 2 | 2 |
HUONG QUE, INC. v. Luugreen1 sentence2022(See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(2)(C) [requiring a party to “provide a summary of the significant facts limited to matters in the record”]; see also Huong Que, Inc. v. Luu (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 400, 409 [recognizing a “ ‘party who challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support a particular finding must summarize the evidence on that point, favorable and unfavorable, and show how and why it is insufficient’ ”].) 18 the extent of the authority of an agent are questions of fact, and the burden of proving agency, as well as the scope of the agent’s authority, rests upon the party a | 1 | 1 |
Associated Creditors' Agency v. Haley Land Co.green2 sentences1968(Brokaw v. Black-Foxe Military Institute (1951), supra; Associated Creditors’ Agency v. Haley Land Co. (1966) 239 Cal.App.2d 610, 614 [ 49 Cal.Rptr. 1 ]; Vargas v. Ruggiero (1961), supra.) The burden of proving an agency in this case was upon the plaintiff. 1 ‘ The law indulges in no presumption that an agency exists but instead presumes that a person is acting for himself and not as agent for another.” (Walsh v. American Trust Co. (1935) 7 Cal.App.2d 654, 659 [ 47 P.2d 323 ]; see also, D’Acquisto v. Evola (1949), supra, 90 Cal.App.2d 210, 213 ; Hathaway v. Siskiyou etc. School Dist. (1944) 66 1968(Brokaw v. Black-Foxe Military Institute (1951), supra; Associated Creditors’ Agency v. Haley Land Co. (1966) 239 Cal.App.2d 610, 614 [ 49 Cal.Rptr. 1 ]; Vargas v. Ruggiero (1961), supra.) The burden of proving an agency in this case was upon the plaintiff. 1 ‘ The law indulges in no presumption that an agency exists but instead presumes that a person is acting for himself and not as agent for another.” (Walsh v. American Trust Co. (1935) 7 Cal.App.2d 654, 659 [ 47 P.2d 323 ]; see also, D’Acquisto v. Evola (1949), supra, 90 Cal.App.2d 210, 213 ; Hathaway v. Siskiyou etc. School Dist. (1944) 66 | 1 | 1 |
D'Acquisto v. Evolagreen1 sentence1968(Brokaw v. Black-Foxe Military Institute (1951), supra; Associated Creditors’ Agency v. Haley Land Co. (1966) 239 Cal.App.2d 610, 614 [ 49 Cal.Rptr. 1 ]; Vargas v. Ruggiero (1961), supra.) The burden of proving an agency in this case was upon the plaintiff. 1 ‘ The law indulges in no presumption that an agency exists but instead presumes that a person is acting for himself and not as agent for another.” (Walsh v. American Trust Co. (1935) 7 Cal.App.2d 654, 659 [ 47 P.2d 323 ]; see also, D’Acquisto v. Evola (1949), supra, 90 Cal.App.2d 210, 213 ; Hathaway v. Siskiyou etc. School Dist. (1944) 66 | 1 | 1 |
Hathaway v. Siskiyou Union High School Districtgreen2 sentences1968(Brokaw v. Black-Foxe Military Institute (1951), supra; Associated Creditors’ Agency v. Haley Land Co. (1966) 239 Cal.App.2d 610, 614 [ 49 Cal.Rptr. 1 ]; Vargas v. Ruggiero (1961), supra.) The burden of proving an agency in this case was upon the plaintiff. 1 ‘ The law indulges in no presumption that an agency exists but instead presumes that a person is acting for himself and not as agent for another.” (Walsh v. American Trust Co. (1935) 7 Cal.App.2d 654, 659 [ 47 P.2d 323 ]; see also, D’Acquisto v. Evola (1949), supra, 90 Cal.App.2d 210, 213 ; Hathaway v. Siskiyou etc. School Dist. (1944) 66 1968(Brokaw v. Black-Foxe Military Institute (1951), supra; Associated Creditors’ Agency v. Haley Land Co. (1966) 239 Cal.App.2d 610, 614 [ 49 Cal.Rptr. 1 ]; Vargas v. Ruggiero (1961), supra.) The burden of proving an agency in this case was upon the plaintiff. 1 ‘ The law indulges in no presumption that an agency exists but instead presumes that a person is acting for himself and not as agent for another.” (Walsh v. American Trust Co. (1935) 7 Cal.App.2d 654, 659 [ 47 P.2d 323 ]; see also, D’Acquisto v. Evola (1949), supra, 90 Cal.App.2d 210, 213 ; Hathaway v. Siskiyou etc. School Dist. (1944) 66 | 1 | 1 |
United Parcel Service of America, Inc. v. Industrial Accident Commissiongreen2 sentences1966Furthermore, the law indulges in no presumption that an agency exists, but instead presumes that a person is acting for himself and not as agent for another.” In United Parcel Service of America, Inc. v. Industrial Acc. Com., 172 Cal.App.2d 73, 76 [ 342 P.2d 41 ], wherein the reviewing court annulled an award of the Industrial Accident Commission, it is said: “There is no evidence that the employer received any benefit from the applicant’s attending the picnic other than that which would be incidental to the employee’s being psychologically or physically benefited from recreation and such bene 1966Furthermore, the law indulges in no presumption that an agency exists, but instead presumes that a person is acting for himself and not as agent for another.” In United Parcel Service of America, Inc. v. Industrial Acc. Com., 172 Cal.App.2d 73, 76 [ 342 P.2d 41 ], wherein the reviewing court annulled an award of the Industrial Accident Commission, it is said: “There is no evidence that the employer received any benefit from the applicant’s attending the picnic other than that which would be incidental to the employee’s being psychologically or physically benefited from recreation and such bene | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ward v. City Trust Co. of New York
green
2 sentences1935(Ward v. City Trust Co., 192 N. Y. 61 [ 84 N. E. 585 ]; Fisk Rubber Co. v. Pinkey, 100 Wash. 220 [ 170 Pac. 581 ].) The law indulges in no presumption that an agency exists but instead presumes that a person is acting for himself and not as agent for another. (2 C. 1935(Ward v. City Trust Co., 192 N. Y. 61 [ 84 N. E. 585 ]; Fisk Rubber Co. v. Pinkey, 100 Wash. 220 [ 170 Pac. 581 ].) The law indulges in no presumption that an agency exists but instead presumes that a person is acting for himself and not as agent for another. (2 C. | 1 | 1935–1935 |
Fisk Rubber Co. v. Pinkey
neutral
2 sentences1935(Ward v. City Trust Co., 192 N. Y. 61 [ 84 N. E. 585 ]; Fisk Rubber Co. v. Pinkey, 100 Wash. 220 [ 170 Pac. 581 ].) The law indulges in no presumption that an agency exists but instead presumes that a person is acting for himself and not as agent for another. (2 C. 1935(Ward v. City Trust Co., 192 N. Y. 61 [ 84 N. E. 585 ]; Fisk Rubber Co. v. Pinkey, 100 Wash. 220 [ 170 Pac. 581 ].) The law indulges in no presumption that an agency exists but instead presumes that a person is acting for himself and not as agent for another. (2 C. | 1 | 1935–1935 |
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.