7 California opinions name it 2 courts 1972–2004 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Juan C.green2 sentences2004(See generally In re Juan C. (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 748, 752-753 [ 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 573 ] [Judicial Council rules consistent with constitutional and statutory law “are as binding as procedural statutes” on juvenile courts].) The court signed an order terminating Mother’s parental rights on the date the order was orally pronounced, but the written order was not on the Judicial Council form. 2004(See generally In re Juan C. (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 748, 752-753 [ 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 573 ] [Judicial Council rules consistent with constitutional and statutory law “are as binding as procedural statutes” on juvenile courts].) The court signed an order terminating Mother’s parental rights on the date the order was orally pronounced, but the written order was not on the Judicial Council form. | 1 | 2 |
Crisci v. Security Insurancegreen1 sentence1978Co., supra, 66 Cal.2d 425, 429.) Turning again to Johansen , we find a recent pronouncement of the rule that a reasonableness test is to be the measure of liability and that no rule of absolute risk is to be applied. | 1 | 1 |
Vandermark v. Ford Motor Co.green2 sentences1972“To establish the manufacturer’s liability it was sufficient that plaintiff proved that he was injured while using the Shopsmith in a way it was intended to be used as a result of a defect in design and. manufacture of which plaintiff was not aware'11 [ 11 ] that made the Shopsmith unsafe for its intended use.” (Id. at p. 64.) During the following decade the Greenman rule has been made applicable to retailers (Vandermark v. Ford Motor Co. (1964) 61 Cal.2d 256, 263 [ 37 Cal.Rptr. 896 , 391 P.2d 168 ]); bailors and lessors (Price v. Shell Oil Company (1970) 2 Cal.3d 245, 248 [ 85 Cal.Rptr. 178 , 1972“To establish the manufacturer’s liability it was sufficient that plaintiff proved that he was injured while using the Shopsmith in a way it was intended to be used as a result of a defect in design and. manufacture of which plaintiff was not aware'11 [ 11 ] that made the Shopsmith unsafe for its intended use.” (Id. at p. 64.) During the following decade the Greenman rule has been made applicable to retailers (Vandermark v. Ford Motor Co. (1964) 61 Cal.2d 256, 263 [ 37 Cal.Rptr. 896 , 391 P.2d 168 ]); bailors and lessors (Price v. Shell Oil Company (1970) 2 Cal.3d 245, 248 [ 85 Cal.Rptr. 178 , | 1 | 1 |
Price v. Shell Oil Co.green2 sentences1972“To establish the manufacturer’s liability it was sufficient that plaintiff proved that he was injured while using the Shopsmith in a way it was intended to be used as a result of a defect in design and. manufacture of which plaintiff was not aware'11 [ 11 ] that made the Shopsmith unsafe for its intended use.” (Id. at p. 64.) During the following decade the Greenman rule has been made applicable to retailers (Vandermark v. Ford Motor Co. (1964) 61 Cal.2d 256, 263 [ 37 Cal.Rptr. 896 , 391 P.2d 168 ]); bailors and lessors (Price v. Shell Oil Company (1970) 2 Cal.3d 245, 248 [ 85 Cal.Rptr. 178 , 1972“To establish the manufacturer’s liability it was sufficient that plaintiff proved that he was injured while using the Shopsmith in a way it was intended to be used as a result of a defect in design and. manufacture of which plaintiff was not aware'11 [ 11 ] that made the Shopsmith unsafe for its intended use.” (Id. at p. 64.) During the following decade the Greenman rule has been made applicable to retailers (Vandermark v. Ford Motor Co. (1964) 61 Cal.2d 256, 263 [ 37 Cal.Rptr. 896 , 391 P.2d 168 ]); bailors and lessors (Price v. Shell Oil Company (1970) 2 Cal.3d 245, 248 [ 85 Cal.Rptr. 178 , | 1 | 1 |
Escola v. Coca Cola Bottling Co.green2 sentences1972Until our decision in Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc., supra, 59 Cal.2d 57 , strict liability for defective products was, in effect, imposed sub silentio by extension of the warranty doctrine. 10 As early as 1944, Justice Traynor, concurring in Escola v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. (1944) 24 Cal.2d 453, 462 [ 150 P.2d 436 ], urged this court to dispense with negligence as the basis of recovery in defective products cases, to' discard the fictions of warranty, and to replace them with absolute liability. “[P]ublic policy demands that responsibility be fixed wherever it will most effectively re 1972Until our decision in Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc., supra, 59 Cal.2d 57 , strict liability for defective products was, in effect, imposed sub silentio by extension of the warranty doctrine. 10 As early as 1944, Justice Traynor, concurring in Escola v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. (1944) 24 Cal.2d 453, 462 [ 150 P.2d 436 ], urged this court to dispense with negligence as the basis of recovery in defective products cases, to' discard the fictions of warranty, and to replace them with absolute liability. “[P]ublic policy demands that responsibility be fixed wherever it will most effectively re | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Nga Li v. Yellow Cab Co.
green
2 sentences1986With the pronouncement of the doctrine of comparative negligence in Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975) 13 Cal.3d 804 [ 119 Cal.Rptr. 858 , 532 P.2d 1226 ], and its application to government tort liability (see Levine v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 68 Cal.App.3d 481 [ 137 Cal.Rptr. 512 ]), such proof would not necessarily exonerate a public entity from all liability. 1986With the pronouncement of the doctrine of comparative negligence in Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975) 13 Cal.3d 804 [ 119 Cal.Rptr. 858 , 532 P.2d 1226 ], and its application to government tort liability (see Levine v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 68 Cal.App.3d 481 [ 137 Cal.Rptr. 512 ]), such proof would not necessarily exonerate a public entity from all liability. | 2 | 1984–1986 |
Levine v. City of Los Angeles
green
2 sentences1986With the pronouncement of the doctrine of comparative negligence in Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975) 13 Cal.3d 804 [ 119 Cal.Rptr. 858 , 532 P.2d 1226 ], and its application to government tort liability (see Levine v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 68 Cal.App.3d 481 [ 137 Cal.Rptr. 512 ]), such proof would not necessarily exonerate a public entity from all liability. 1986With the pronouncement of the doctrine of comparative negligence in Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975) 13 Cal.3d 804 [ 119 Cal.Rptr. 858 , 532 P.2d 1226 ], and its application to government tort liability (see Levine v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 68 Cal.App.3d 481 [ 137 Cal.Rptr. 512 ]), such proof would not necessarily exonerate a public entity from all liability. | 2 | 1984–1986 |
In Re Markaus
green
1 sentence2004In those situations, "the order is effective only when made in the statutory form." ( Ibid. ) Mother contends that the Markaus V. exception to the pronouncement rule applies here because California Rules of Court, rule 201.1(b) (rule 201.1(b)) requires use of Judicial Council form JV-320 for orders under section 366.26, and the court did not use that form in this case. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
People v. King
green
2 sentences1995The majority relies upon our opinion in People v. King (1993) 5 Cal.4th 59 [ 19 Cal.Rptr.2d 233 , 851 P.2d 27 ] for the proposition that we are not free to overrule the decisions in Duarte and its progeny, because the Legislature, by enacting Vehicle Code section 17004.7, “modified the law stated in those decisions, and impliedly approved them to the extent it did not modify them.” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 1162.) The King case is readily distinguishable, however, and does not support the majority’s position. 1995The majority relies upon our opinion in People v. King (1993) 5 Cal.4th 59 [ 19 Cal.Rptr.2d 233 , 851 P.2d 27 ] for the proposition that we are not free to overrule the decisions in Duarte and its progeny, because the Legislature, by enacting Vehicle Code section 17004.7, “modified the law stated in those decisions, and impliedly approved them to the extent it did not modify them.” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 1162.) The King case is readily distinguishable, however, and does not support the majority’s position. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc.
green
1 sentence1972Until our decision in Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc., supra, 59 Cal.2d 57 , strict liability for defective products was, in effect, imposed sub silentio by extension of the warranty doctrine. 10 As early as 1944, Justice Traynor, concurring in Escola v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. (1944) 24 Cal.2d 453, 462 [ 150 P.2d 436 ], urged this court to dispense with negligence as the basis of recovery in defective products cases, to' discard the fictions of warranty, and to replace them with absolute liability. “[P]ublic policy demands that responsibility be fixed wherever it will most effectively re | 1 | 1972–1972 |
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.