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 1965–1989 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. Stewartgreen2 sentences1965We recognize that defendant's arrest does not of itself compel a conclusion that the third condition of the rule has been met. [13] As was said in People v. Stewart, supra, 62 Cal.2d 571 , 578 "Although in most cases the process of interrogations following an arrest will so lend itself [to eliciting incriminating statements], it does not necessarily do so." In order to determine whether this condition of the rule has been met, it is necessary to "analyze the total situation which envelops the questioning by considering such factors as the length of the interrogation, the place and time of the 1965Indeed they are satisfied by the circumstance of the arrest itself. “ [T]he arrest encompasses two of the circumstances which produced the accusatory stages in the Escobedo and Dorado cases: (1) the investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a particular suspect, and (2) the suspect is in custody.” (People v. Stewart (1965) 62 Cal.2d 571, 577 [ 43 Cal.Rptr. 201 , 400 P.2d 97 ].) However we have some difficulty in determining whether the statements en route to jail were made while Sang “had carried out a process of interrogations that lent itse | 1 | 3 |
Ybarra v. Spangardgreen2 sentences1970(Ybarra v. Spangard, supra, 25 Cal.2d 486, 489 [ 154 P.2d 687 , 162 A.L.R. 1258 ]; Zentz v. Coca Cola Bottling Co., supra, 39 Cal.2d 436, 444 ; Rest.2d Torts, § 328 D(l) (b); Prosser on Torts (3d ed.) pp. 228-229.) While a plaintiff may properly rely on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur even though he was not inactive at the time of the accident and participated in the events leading up to it, before he can do so the evidence must exclude his conduct as the responsible cause. 1970(Ybarra v. Spangard, supra, 25 Cal.2d 486, 489 [ 154 P.2d 687 , 162 A.L.R. 1258 ]; Zentz v. Coca Cola Bottling Co., supra, 39 Cal.2d 436, 444 ; Rest.2d Torts, § 328 D(l) (b); Prosser on Torts (3d ed.) pp. 228-229.) While a plaintiff may properly rely on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur even though he was not inactive at the time of the accident and participated in the events leading up to it, before he can do so the evidence must exclude his conduct as the responsible cause. | 1 | 2 |
People v. Doradogreen1 sentence1965Indeed they are satisfied by the circumstance of the arrest itself. “ [T]he arrest encompasses two of the circumstances which produced the accusatory stages in the Escobedo and Dorado cases: (1) the investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a particular suspect, and (2) the suspect is in custody.” (People v. Stewart (1965) 62 Cal.2d 571, 577 [ 43 Cal.Rptr. 201 , 400 P.2d 97 ].) However we have some difficulty in determining whether the statements en route to jail were made while Sang “had carried out a process of interrogations that lent itse | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Financial Corp. of America v. Wilburn
green
2 sentences1989Courts respect the absolute aspect of the privilege by considering a statement's apparent or ostensible connection to the underlying action, without exploring the writer's [or speaker's] actual, *316 subjective intent or purpose." ( 189 Cal. App.3d 764, 776 .) [8] Dooley's statements fit the third condition of the privilege because they were made to assist in litigation. 1989Courts respect the absolute aspect of the privilege by considering a statement’s apparent or ostensible connection to the underlying action, without exploring the writer’s [or speaker’s] actual, subjective intent or purpose.” ( 189 Cal.App.3d 764, 776 .) 8 Dooley’s statements fit the third condition of the privilege because they were made to assist in litigation. | 2 | 1989–1989 |
Zentz v. Coca Cola Bottling Co.
green
2 sentences1970(Ybarra v. Spangard, supra, 25 Cal.2d 486, 489 [ 154 P.2d 687 , 162 A.L.R. 1258 ]; Zentz v. Coca Cola Bottling Co., supra, 39 Cal.2d 436, 444 ; Rest.2d Torts, § 328 D(l) (b); Prosser on Torts (3d ed.) pp. 228-229.) While a plaintiff may properly rely on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur even though he was not inactive at the time of the accident and participated in the events leading up to it, before he can do so the evidence must exclude his conduct as the responsible cause. 1966(Ybarra v. Spangard, supra, 25 Cal.2d 486, 489 ; Zentz v. Coca Cola Bottling Co., supra, 39 Cal.2d 436, 444 ; Rest.2d, Torts, § 328 D(1) (b); Prosser on Torts (3d ed.) pp. 228-229.) While a plaintiff may properly rely on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur even though he was not inactive at the time of the accident and participated in the events leading up to it, before he can do so the evidence must exclude his conduct as the responsible cause. | 2 | 1966–1970 |