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 1935–2025 1 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. Crandellgreen1 sentence2025(See People v. Crandell (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1301, 1309 [imposing restitution fine greater than statutory minimum does not violate plea agreement where the record demonstrates “that the parties intended to leave the amount of defendant’s restitution fine to the discretion 2 Street’s notice of appeal, signed and mailed from prison within 60 days of entry of judgment but not received and filed by the trial court until after the time for appeal had lapsed, is timely under the “prison-delivery rule.” (In re Chavez (2003) 30 Cal.4th 643, 659 .) 3 of the court”].) To the extent the court’s oral advisem | 1 | 1 |
Laurenzi v. Vranizangreen2 sentences1990Co. (1920) 182 Cal. 140, 143, 144 [ 187 P. 735 ] [same]; Fernandez v. Consolidated Fisheries, Inc. (1953) 117 Cal.App.2d 254, 259 [ 255 P.2d 863 ] [defendant’s truck dropped *1593 box of rubbish into the street, in violation of ordinance]; Laurenzi v. Vranizan (1945) 25 Cal.2d 806, 809 [ 155 P.2d 633 ] [plaintiff slipped on vegetable matter from defendant’s vegetable business]; Kopfinger v. Grand Central Pub. 1990Co. (1920) 182 Cal. 140, 143, 144 [ 187 P. 735 ] [same]; Fernandez v. Consolidated Fisheries, Inc. (1953) 117 Cal.App.2d 254, 259 [ 255 P.2d 863 ] [defendant’s truck dropped *1593 box of rubbish into the street, in violation of ordinance]; Laurenzi v. Vranizan (1945) 25 Cal.2d 806, 809 [ 155 P.2d 633 ] [plaintiff slipped on vegetable matter from defendant’s vegetable business]; Kopfinger v. Grand Central Pub. | 1 | 1 |
Fernandez v. Consolidated Fisheries, Inc.green2 sentences1990Co. (1920) 182 Cal. 140, 143, 144 [ 187 P. 735 ] [same]; Fernandez v. Consolidated Fisheries, Inc. (1953) 117 Cal.App.2d 254, 259 [ 255 P.2d 863 ] [defendant’s truck dropped *1593 box of rubbish into the street, in violation of ordinance]; Laurenzi v. Vranizan (1945) 25 Cal.2d 806, 809 [ 155 P.2d 633 ] [plaintiff slipped on vegetable matter from defendant’s vegetable business]; Kopfinger v. Grand Central Pub. 1990Co. (1920) 182 Cal. 140, 143, 144 [ 187 P. 735 ] [same]; Fernandez v. Consolidated Fisheries, Inc. (1953) 117 Cal.App.2d 254, 259 [ 255 P.2d 863 ] [defendant’s truck dropped *1593 box of rubbish into the street, in violation of ordinance]; Laurenzi v. Vranizan (1945) 25 Cal.2d 806, 809 [ 155 P.2d 633 ] [plaintiff slipped on vegetable matter from defendant’s vegetable business]; Kopfinger v. Grand Central Pub. | 1 | 1 |
McKune v. Santa Clara Valley Mill & Lumber Co.green2 sentences1990Co. (1895) 110 Cal. 480, 484, 485 [ 42 P. 980 ] [defendant lumber company piled lumber in the street in violation of ordinance]; Western States etc. Co. v. Bayside L. 1990Co. (1895) 110 Cal. 480, 484, 485 [ 42 P. 980 ] [defendant lumber company piled lumber in the street in violation of ordinance]; Western States etc. Co. v. Bayside L. | 1 | 1 |
W. States Gas & Elec. Co. v. Bayside Lumber Co.green2 sentences1990Co. (1920) 182 Cal. 140, 143, 144 [ 187 P. 735 ] [same]; Fernandez v. Consolidated Fisheries, Inc. (1953) 117 Cal.App.2d 254, 259 [ 255 P.2d 863 ] [defendant’s truck dropped *1593 box of rubbish into the street, in violation of ordinance]; Laurenzi v. Vranizan (1945) 25 Cal.2d 806, 809 [ 155 P.2d 633 ] [plaintiff slipped on vegetable matter from defendant’s vegetable business]; Kopfinger v. Grand Central Pub. 1990Co. (1920) 182 Cal. 140, 143, 144 [ 187 P. 735 ] [same]; Fernandez v. Consolidated Fisheries, Inc. (1953) 117 Cal.App.2d 254, 259 [ 255 P.2d 863 ] [defendant’s truck dropped *1593 box of rubbish into the street, in violation of ordinance]; Laurenzi v. Vranizan (1945) 25 Cal.2d 806, 809 [ 155 P.2d 633 ] [plaintiff slipped on vegetable matter from defendant’s vegetable business]; Kopfinger v. Grand Central Pub. | 1 | 1 |
Bixby v. Piernogreen1 sentence1986(See Bixby v. Pierno, supra, 4 Cal.3d at p. 144 [trial court determines whether errors of law were committed by agency].) The No Oil/“B” Street test is inapplicable here because section 21151, on which those cases rest, sets a quite different standard from the one provided by section 21166, which governed the City’s decision here. | 1 | 1 |
Brentwood Assn. for No Drilling, Inc. v. City of Los Angelesgreen2 sentences1983(See Brentwood Assn. for No Drilling, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 491, 502-504 [ 184 Cal.Rptr. 664 ]; Markley v. City Council (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 656, 667 [ 182 Cal.Rptr. 659 ]; see also McGue v. Sillas (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 799, 807 [ 147 Cal.Rptr. 354 ].) The trial court concluded that the Board’s decision was supported by substantial evidence, and added that framing the issue according to the Friends of “B” Street standard would not alter its conclusion. 1983(See Brentwood Assn. for No Drilling, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 491, 502-504 [ 184 Cal.Rptr. 664 ]; Markley v. City Council (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 656, 667 [ 182 Cal.Rptr. 659 ]; see also McGue v. Sillas (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 799, 807 [ 147 Cal.Rptr. 354 ].) The trial court concluded that the Board’s decision was supported by substantial evidence, and added that framing the issue according to the Friends of “B” Street standard would not alter its conclusion. | 1 | 1 |
McGue v. Sillasgreen2 sentences1983(See Brentwood Assn. for No Drilling, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 491, 502-504 [ 184 Cal.Rptr. 664 ]; Markley v. City Council (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 656, 667 [ 182 Cal.Rptr. 659 ]; see also McGue v. Sillas (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 799, 807 [ 147 Cal.Rptr. 354 ].) The trial court concluded that the Board’s decision was supported by substantial evidence, and added that framing the issue according to the Friends of “B” Street standard would not alter its conclusion. 1983(See Brentwood Assn. for No Drilling, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 491, 502-504 [ 184 Cal.Rptr. 664 ]; Markley v. City Council (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 656, 667 [ 182 Cal.Rptr. 659 ]; see also McGue v. Sillas (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 799, 807 [ 147 Cal.Rptr. 354 ].) The trial court concluded that the Board’s decision was supported by substantial evidence, and added that framing the issue according to the Friends of “B” Street standard would not alter its conclusion. | 1 | 1 |
Markley v. City Councilgreen2 sentences1983(See Brentwood Assn. for No Drilling, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 491, 502-504 [ 184 Cal.Rptr. 664 ]; Markley v. City Council (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 656, 667 [ 182 Cal.Rptr. 659 ]; see also McGue v. Sillas (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 799, 807 [ 147 Cal.Rptr. 354 ].) The trial court concluded that the Board’s decision was supported by substantial evidence, and added that framing the issue according to the Friends of “B” Street standard would not alter its conclusion. 1983(See Brentwood Assn. for No Drilling, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 491, 502-504 [ 184 Cal.Rptr. 664 ]; Markley v. City Council (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 656, 667 [ 182 Cal.Rptr. 659 ]; see also McGue v. Sillas (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 799, 807 [ 147 Cal.Rptr. 354 ].) The trial court concluded that the Board’s decision was supported by substantial evidence, and added that framing the issue according to the Friends of “B” Street standard would not alter its conclusion. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re Chavez
green
1 sentence2025(See People v. Crandell (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1301, 1309 [imposing restitution fine greater than statutory minimum does not violate plea agreement where the record demonstrates “that the parties intended to leave the amount of defendant’s restitution fine to the discretion 2 Street’s notice of appeal, signed and mailed from prison within 60 days of entry of judgment but not received and filed by the trial court until after the time for appeal had lapsed, is timely under the “prison-delivery rule.” (In re Chavez (2003) 30 Cal.4th 643, 659 .) 3 of the court”].) To the extent the court’s oral advisem | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Villalobos
green
1 sentence2025(See People v. Crandell (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1301, 1309 [imposing restitution fine greater than statutory minimum does not violate plea agreement where the record demonstrates “that the parties intended to leave the amount of defendant’s restitution fine to the discretion 2 Street’s notice of appeal, signed and mailed from prison within 60 days of entry of judgment but not received and filed by the trial court until after the time for appeal had lapsed, is timely under the “prison-delivery rule.” (In re Chavez (2003) 30 Cal.4th 643, 659 .) 3 of the court”].) To the extent the court’s oral advisem | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Abood v. Detroit Board of Education
red
2 sentences1990The decision elaborated upon the Street analysis, and suggested the efficacy of a voluntary union plan “by which dissenters would be afforded an internal union remedy.” (Id. at p. 122 [ 10 L.Ed.2d at p. 242 ].) Allen added the perception that “[s]ince the unions possess the facts and records from which the proportion of political to total union expenditures can reasonably be calculated, basic considerations of fairness compel that they, not the individual employees, bear the burden of proving such proportion.” (Id. at pp. 121-122 [ 10 L.Ed.2d at p. 241 ].) Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 1990The decision elaborated upon the Street analysis, and suggested the efficacy of a voluntary union plan “by which dissenters would be afforded an internal union remedy.” (Id. at p. 122 [ 10 L.Ed.2d at p. 242 ].) Allen added the perception that “[s]ince the unions possess the facts and records from which the proportion of political to total union expenditures can reasonably be calculated, basic considerations of fairness compel that they, not the individual employees, bear the burden of proving such proportion.” (Id. at pp. 121-122 [ 10 L.Ed.2d at p. 241 ].) Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, | 1 | 1990–1990 |
George v. City of Los Angeles
green
1 sentence1940(Magnuson v. City of Stockton, 116 Cal. App. 532 [ 3 Pac. (2d) 30 ] ; Uttley v. City of Santa Ana, 136 Cal. App. 23 [ 28 Pac. (2d) 377 ] ; Rafferty v. City of Marysville, 207 Cal. 657 [ 280 Pac. 118 ]; Norton v. City of Pomona, 5 Cal. (2d) 54 [ 53 Pac. (2d) 952 ] ; George v. City of Los Angeles, 11 Cal. (2d) 303 [ 79 Pac. (2d) 723 ].) Certainly there could be no more competent evidence of notice of a dangerous or defective condition of a street than a claim filed by a person who had been injured while traveling over it. | 1 | 1940–1940 |
Uttley v. City of Santa Ana
green
2 sentences1940(Magnuson v. City of Stockton, 116 Cal. App. 532 [ 3 Pac. (2d) 30 ] ; Uttley v. City of Santa Ana, 136 Cal. App. 23 [ 28 Pac. (2d) 377 ] ; Rafferty v. City of Marysville, 207 Cal. 657 [ 280 Pac. 118 ]; Norton v. City of Pomona, 5 Cal. (2d) 54 [ 53 Pac. (2d) 952 ] ; George v. City of Los Angeles, 11 Cal. (2d) 303 [ 79 Pac. (2d) 723 ].) Certainly there could be no more competent evidence of notice of a dangerous or defective condition of a street than a claim filed by a person who had been injured while traveling over it. 1940(Magnuson v. City of Stockton, 116 Cal. App. 532 [ 3 Pac. (2d) 30 ] ; Uttley v. City of Santa Ana, 136 Cal. App. 23 [ 28 Pac. (2d) 377 ] ; Rafferty v. City of Marysville, 207 Cal. 657 [ 280 Pac. 118 ]; Norton v. City of Pomona, 5 Cal. (2d) 54 [ 53 Pac. (2d) 952 ] ; George v. City of Los Angeles, 11 Cal. (2d) 303 [ 79 Pac. (2d) 723 ].) Certainly there could be no more competent evidence of notice of a dangerous or defective condition of a street than a claim filed by a person who had been injured while traveling over it. | 1 | 1940–1940 |
Magnuson v. City of Stockton
green
2 sentences1940(Magnuson v. City of Stockton, 116 Cal. App. 532 [ 3 Pac. (2d) 30 ] ; Uttley v. City of Santa Ana, 136 Cal. App. 23 [ 28 Pac. (2d) 377 ] ; Rafferty v. City of Marysville, 207 Cal. 657 [ 280 Pac. 118 ]; Norton v. City of Pomona, 5 Cal. (2d) 54 [ 53 Pac. (2d) 952 ] ; George v. City of Los Angeles, 11 Cal. (2d) 303 [ 79 Pac. (2d) 723 ].) Certainly there could be no more competent evidence of notice of a dangerous or defective condition of a street than a claim filed by a person who had been injured while traveling over it. 1940(Magnuson v. City of Stockton, 116 Cal. App. 532 [ 3 Pac. (2d) 30 ] ; Uttley v. City of Santa Ana, 136 Cal. App. 23 [ 28 Pac. (2d) 377 ] ; Rafferty v. City of Marysville, 207 Cal. 657 [ 280 Pac. 118 ]; Norton v. City of Pomona, 5 Cal. (2d) 54 [ 53 Pac. (2d) 952 ] ; George v. City of Los Angeles, 11 Cal. (2d) 303 [ 79 Pac. (2d) 723 ].) Certainly there could be no more competent evidence of notice of a dangerous or defective condition of a street than a claim filed by a person who had been injured while traveling over it. | 1 | 1940–1940 |
Rafferty v. City of Marysville
green
2 sentences1940(Magnuson v. City of Stockton, 116 Cal. App. 532 [ 3 Pac. (2d) 30 ] ; Uttley v. City of Santa Ana, 136 Cal. App. 23 [ 28 Pac. (2d) 377 ] ; Rafferty v. City of Marysville, 207 Cal. 657 [ 280 Pac. 118 ]; Norton v. City of Pomona, 5 Cal. (2d) 54 [ 53 Pac. (2d) 952 ] ; George v. City of Los Angeles, 11 Cal. (2d) 303 [ 79 Pac. (2d) 723 ].) Certainly there could be no more competent evidence of notice of a dangerous or defective condition of a street than a claim filed by a person who had been injured while traveling over it. 1940(Magnuson v. City of Stockton, 116 Cal. App. 532 [ 3 Pac. (2d) 30 ] ; Uttley v. City of Santa Ana, 136 Cal. App. 23 [ 28 Pac. (2d) 377 ] ; Rafferty v. City of Marysville, 207 Cal. 657 [ 280 Pac. 118 ]; Norton v. City of Pomona, 5 Cal. (2d) 54 [ 53 Pac. (2d) 952 ] ; George v. City of Los Angeles, 11 Cal. (2d) 303 [ 79 Pac. (2d) 723 ].) Certainly there could be no more competent evidence of notice of a dangerous or defective condition of a street than a claim filed by a person who had been injured while traveling over it. | 1 | 1940–1940 |
Norton v. City of Pomona
green
1 sentence1940(Magnuson v. City of Stockton, 116 Cal. App. 532 [ 3 Pac. (2d) 30 ] ; Uttley v. City of Santa Ana, 136 Cal. App. 23 [ 28 Pac. (2d) 377 ] ; Rafferty v. City of Marysville, 207 Cal. 657 [ 280 Pac. 118 ]; Norton v. City of Pomona, 5 Cal. (2d) 54 [ 53 Pac. (2d) 952 ] ; George v. City of Los Angeles, 11 Cal. (2d) 303 [ 79 Pac. (2d) 723 ].) Certainly there could be no more competent evidence of notice of a dangerous or defective condition of a street than a claim filed by a person who had been injured while traveling over it. | 1 | 1940–1940 |
McMillan v. Thompson
neutral
2 sentences1935The first contention of defendants is resolved against them by the provisions of subdivision “A” of section 136 of the California Vehicle Act as construed in Silvey v. Harm, 120 Cal. App. 561 [ 8 Pac. (2d) 570 ], Smith v. Pacific Greyhound Corp., 139 Cal. App. 696 [ 35 Pac. (2d) 169 ], and McMillan v. Thompson, 140 Cal. App. 437 [ 35 Pac. (2d) 419 ].) The second ground of reversal presents a question of fact to be decided by the trial court. 1935The first contention of defendants is resolved against them by the provisions of subdivision “A” of section 136 of the California Vehicle Act as construed in Silvey v. Harm, 120 Cal. App. 561 [ 8 Pac. (2d) 570 ], Smith v. Pacific Greyhound Corp., 139 Cal. App. 696 [ 35 Pac. (2d) 169 ], and McMillan v. Thompson, 140 Cal. App. 437 [ 35 Pac. (2d) 419 ].) The second ground of reversal presents a question of fact to be decided by the trial court. | 1 | 1935–1935 |
Smith v. Pacific Greyhound Corp.
green
2 sentences1935The first contention of defendants is resolved against them by the provisions of subdivision “A” of section 136 of the California Vehicle Act as construed in Silvey v. Harm, 120 Cal. App. 561 [ 8 Pac. (2d) 570 ], Smith v. Pacific Greyhound Corp., 139 Cal. App. 696 [ 35 Pac. (2d) 169 ], and McMillan v. Thompson, 140 Cal. App. 437 [ 35 Pac. (2d) 419 ].) The second ground of reversal presents a question of fact to be decided by the trial court. 1935The first contention of defendants is resolved against them by the provisions of subdivision “A” of section 136 of the California Vehicle Act as construed in Silvey v. Harm, 120 Cal. App. 561 [ 8 Pac. (2d) 570 ], Smith v. Pacific Greyhound Corp., 139 Cal. App. 696 [ 35 Pac. (2d) 169 ], and McMillan v. Thompson, 140 Cal. App. 437 [ 35 Pac. (2d) 419 ].) The second ground of reversal presents a question of fact to be decided by the trial court. | 1 | 1935–1935 |
Silvey v. Harm
green
2 sentences1935The first contention of defendants is resolved against them by the provisions of subdivision “A” of section 136 of the California Vehicle Act as construed in Silvey v. Harm, 120 Cal. App. 561 [ 8 Pac. (2d) 570 ], Smith v. Pacific Greyhound Corp., 139 Cal. App. 696 [ 35 Pac. (2d) 169 ], and McMillan v. Thompson, 140 Cal. App. 437 [ 35 Pac. (2d) 419 ].) The second ground of reversal presents a question of fact to be decided by the trial court. 1935The first contention of defendants is resolved against them by the provisions of subdivision “A” of section 136 of the California Vehicle Act as construed in Silvey v. Harm, 120 Cal. App. 561 [ 8 Pac. (2d) 570 ], Smith v. Pacific Greyhound Corp., 139 Cal. App. 696 [ 35 Pac. (2d) 169 ], and McMillan v. Thompson, 140 Cal. App. 437 [ 35 Pac. (2d) 419 ].) The second ground of reversal presents a question of fact to be decided by the trial court. | 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.