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 2 courts 1980–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Mesler v. Bragg Management Co.green1 sentence2021(Mesler v. Bragg Management Co. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 290, 300 [“The alter ego doctrine arises when a plaintiff comes into court claiming that an opposing party is using the corporate form unjustly and in derogation of the plaintiff’s interests. [Citation.] In certain circumstances the court will disregard the corporate entity and will hold the individual shareholders liable for the actions of the corporation[.]”].) Alter ego depends on whether there is “‘such unity of interest and ownership that the separate personalities of the corporation 8 and the individual no longer exist’” (ibid.), and alter | 1 | 1 |
Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United Shoe MacHinery Corp.green1 sentence2010(Compare § 16760, subd. (a)(1) [any award must exclude damages “which duplicate^ amounts which have been awarded for the same injury”] with 15 U.S.C. § 15c(a)(l) [same].) As we have discussed, that provision was specifically designed to account for duplicative damage awards resulting from allowing indirect purchasers to recover damages when, under the Hanover Shoe no pass-on defense rule (Hanover Shoe, supra, 392 U.S. at p. 494), direct purchasers might already have been awarded those same damages. | 1 | 1 |
Harris v. New Yorkgreen2 sentences1997(May, supra, 44 Cal.3d at p. 315 .) May classified the Disbrow rule as a remedial rule based on independent state grounds under the state Constitution and contrary to the federal rule of Harris v. New York (1971) 401 U.S. 222 [ 91 S.Ct. 643 , 28 L.Ed.2d 1 ], which allowed defendant’s statements obtained in violation of Miranda for impeachment purposes. ( May, supra, 44 Cal.3d at pp. 318-319.) May interpreted California Constitution, article I, section 28, subdivision (d), as follows: “[T]he ‘Truth-in-Evidence’ provision of our Constitution was probably intended by the California voters as a me 1997(May, supra, 44 Cal.3d at p. 315 .) May classified the Disbrow rule as a remedial rule based on independent state grounds under the state Constitution and contrary to the federal rule of Harris v. New York (1971) 401 U.S. 222 [ 91 S.Ct. 643 , 28 L.Ed.2d 1 ], which allowed defendant’s statements obtained in violation of Miranda for impeachment purposes. ( May, supra, 44 Cal.3d at pp. 318-319.) May interpreted California Constitution, article I, section 28, subdivision (d), as follows: “[T]he ‘Truth-in-Evidence’ provision of our Constitution was probably intended by the California voters as a me | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
The People v. Mai
green
1 sentence2025(See Mai, supra, 57 Cal.4th at p. 1009 .) The remedial instruction, which section 859.5 directed was “to be developed by the Judicial Council” (§ 859.5, subd. (e)(3)), is in the Bench Notes to CALCRIM No. 358, the form instruction on a defendant’s out-of-court statements. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Leek v. Cooper
green
1 sentence2021(See Leek v. Cooper (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 399, 418 .) Rather, it is a remedial doctrine that makes shareholders generally liable for a corporation’s actions. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Clair
green
1 sentence2014"In Griffin, the United States Supreme Court held that the privilege against self-incrimination of the Fifth Amendment prohibits any comment on a defendant's failure to testify at trial that invites or allows the jury to infer guilt therefrom, whether in the form of an instruction by the court or a remark by the prosecution." (People v. Clair (1992) 2 Cal.4th 629, 662 .) Appellant argues the court's instruction implied that he remained silent at the preliminary hearing because he was guilty, and fabricated his trial testimony. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
People v. May
green
2 sentences1997(May, supra, 44 Cal.3d at p. 315 .) May classified the Disbrow rule as a remedial rule based on independent state grounds under the state Constitution and contrary to the federal rule of Harris v. New York (1971) 401 U.S. 222 [ 91 S.Ct. 643 , 28 L.Ed.2d 1 ], which allowed defendant’s statements obtained in violation of Miranda for impeachment purposes. ( May, supra, 44 Cal.3d at pp. 318-319.) May interpreted California Constitution, article I, section 28, subdivision (d), as follows: “[T]he ‘Truth-in-Evidence’ provision of our Constitution was probably intended by the California voters as a me 1997(May, supra, 44 Cal.3d at p. 315 .) May classified the Disbrow rule as a remedial rule based on independent state grounds under the state Constitution and contrary to the federal rule of Harris v. New York (1971) 401 U.S. 222 [ 91 S.Ct. 643 , 28 L.Ed.2d 1 ], which allowed defendant’s statements obtained in violation of Miranda for impeachment purposes. ( May, supra, 44 Cal.3d at pp. 318-319.) May interpreted California Constitution, article I, section 28, subdivision (d), as follows: “[T]he ‘Truth-in-Evidence’ provision of our Constitution was probably intended by the California voters as a me | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Joseph v. Lowery
green
1 sentence1988The Oregon Supreme Court's decision in Joseph v. Lowery, supra, 495 P.2d 273 illustrates the point quite well, in a context closely related to the instant case. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Sterling v. Title Insurance & Trust Co.
green
2 sentences1980Except for the citation to Sterling v. Title Ins. & Trust Co. (1942) 53 Cal.App.2d 736 [ 128 P.2d 31 ], appellant provides the court with no judicial authority to support her proposition that the remedial clause of section 707 applies with equal force to claims filed pursuant to section 709. 1980Except for the citation to Sterling v. Title Ins. & Trust Co. (1942) 53 Cal.App.2d 736 [ 128 P.2d 31 ], appellant provides the court with no judicial authority to support her proposition that the remedial clause of section 707 applies with equal force to claims filed pursuant to section 709. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
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.