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 1970–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Russell v. Union Oil Co.green2 sentences2024(Russell v. Union Oil Co. (1970) 7 Cal.App.3d 110, 114 ; accord, Moritz v. Universal City Studios LLC (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 238 , 246.) “If there is no evidence establishing a manifestation of assent to the ‘same thing’ by both parties, then there is no mutual consent to contract and no contract formation.” (Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 793, 811 .) The party seeking to enforce an arbitration agreement has the and (3) we can be sure our decision would not be altered by presentation of additional evidence. 2023(Ibid. [“ ‘Mutual assent or consent is necessary to the formation of a contract’ and ‘[m]utual assent is a question of fact’ ”]; see also Russell v. Union Oil Co. (1970) 7 Cal.App.3d 110, 114 [“The determination whether [mutual assent] is present is made by the use of an objective test, the manifestations or expressions of assent being controlling. [Citation.] ‘Mutual assent is gathered from the reasonable meaning of the words and acts of the parties, and not from their unexpressed intentions or understanding’ ”].) LaCasse argues Ruiz and Espejo compel a different conclusion. | 1 | 2 |
Geertz v. Ausoniogreen2 sentences2001The test is thus objective rather than subjective; it is not applied to each individual user." ( Tomko Woll Group Architects, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 46 Cal. App.4th 1326, 1339 , 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 300 .) "The use of an objective test for a patent defect effectuates the broad protection afforded contractors by the statute [i.e., section 337.1] by eliminating the possibility that a defect could be deemed patent as to some plaintiffs and latent as to others depending on the circumstances of each person injured as a result of the defect." ( Geertz v. Ausonio (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 1363, 1370 , 6 2001The test is thus objective rather than subjective; it is not applied to each individual user." ( Tomko Woll Group Architects, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 46 Cal. App.4th 1326, 1339 , 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 300 .) "The use of an objective test for a patent defect effectuates the broad protection afforded contractors by the statute [i.e., section 337.1] by eliminating the possibility that a defect could be deemed patent as to some plaintiffs and latent as to others depending on the circumstances of each person injured as a result of the defect." ( Geertz v. Ausonio (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 1363, 1370 , 6 | 1 | 2 |
Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flickgreen1 sentence2024(Russell v. Union Oil Co. (1970) 7 Cal.App.3d 110, 114 ; accord, Moritz v. Universal City Studios LLC (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 238 , 246.) “If there is no evidence establishing a manifestation of assent to the ‘same thing’ by both parties, then there is no mutual consent to contract and no contract formation.” (Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 793, 811 .) The party seeking to enforce an arbitration agreement has the and (3) we can be sure our decision would not be altered by presentation of additional evidence. | 1 | 1 |
King v. Stanleygreen2 sentences1970(King v. Stanley, 32 Cal.2d 584, 591 [ 197 P.2d 321 ].) “Mutual assent is gathered from the reasonable meaning of the words and acts of the parties, and not from their unexpressed intentions or understanding.” (1 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (1960) p. 39.) (3) Acceptance of an offer, which may be manifested by conduct as well as by words, must be expressed or communicated by the offeree to the offeror. (1 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (1960) pp. 64-65.) The record shows that plaintiff was on notice at all times that Union was claiming authorization to maintain the telephone line under color of ri 1970(King v. Stanley, 32 Cal.2d 584, 591 [ 197 P.2d 321 ].) “Mutual assent is gathered from the reasonable meaning of the words and acts of the parties, and not from their unexpressed intentions or understanding.” (1 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (1960) p. 39.) (3) Acceptance of an offer, which may be manifested by conduct as well as by words, must be expressed or communicated by the offeree to the offeror. (1 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (1960) pp. 64-65.) The record shows that plaintiff was on notice at all times that Union was claiming authorization to maintain the telephone line under color of ri | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Sanders
green
2 sentences2005The court explained: “Whren’s analysis logically extends, at the very least, to a search where ... the circumstances, viewed objectively, show a possible probation violation that justifies a search of the probationer’s house pursuant to a search condition.” (Woods, supra, at pp. 678-679 .) In a footnote, the court further clarified: “[W]e emphasize ‘at the very least’ because our cases effectively recognize that a search pursuant to a probation search condition may be reasonable and lawful without facts indicating a probation violation . . . .” (Id. at p. 679, fn. 6.) The court reaffirmed the 2005The court explained: “Whren’s analysis logically extends, at the very least, to a search where ... the circumstances, viewed objectively, show a possible probation violation that justifies a search of the probationer’s house pursuant to a search condition.” (Woods, supra, at pp. 678-679 .) In a footnote, the court further clarified: “[W]e emphasize ‘at the very least’ because our cases effectively recognize that a search pursuant to a probation search condition may be reasonable and lawful without facts indicating a probation violation . . . .” (Id. at p. 679, fn. 6.) The court reaffirmed the | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Tomko Woll Group Architects, Inc. v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences2001The test is thus objective rather than subjective; it is not applied to each individual user." ( Tomko Woll Group Architects, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 46 Cal. App.4th 1326, 1339 , 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 300 .) "The use of an objective test for a patent defect effectuates the broad protection afforded contractors by the statute [i.e., section 337.1] by eliminating the possibility that a defect could be deemed patent as to some plaintiffs and latent as to others depending on the circumstances of each person injured as a result of the defect." ( Geertz v. Ausonio (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 1363, 1370 , 6 2001The test is thus objective rather than subjective; it is not applied to each individual user." ( Tomko Woll Group Architects, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 46 Cal. App.4th 1326, 1339 , 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 300 .) "The use of an objective test for a patent defect effectuates the broad protection afforded contractors by the statute [i.e., section 337.1] by eliminating the possibility that a defect could be deemed patent as to some plaintiffs and latent as to others depending on the circumstances of each person injured as a result of the defect." ( Geertz v. Ausonio (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 1363, 1370 , 6 | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Mathews v. City of Cerritos
green
1 sentence1994As observed in Mathews v. City of Cerritos, supra, 2 Cal.App.4th 1380 , “[t]he statutory definition of reasonably foreseeable persons using the property with due care takes into consideration the lower standard of care which is expected of children. [Citations.]” {Id. at p. 1385.) III. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.