7 California opinions name it 2 courts 1934–2001 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 |
|---|---|---|
Raymond v. Paradise Unified School Districtgreen2 sentences1983We recognize that neither of these issues has been adjudicated. 3 Among these are “[t]he social utility of the activity out of which the injury arises, compared with the risks involved in its conduct; the kind of person with whom the actor is dealing; the workability of a rule of care, especially in terms of the parties’ relative ability to adopt practical means of preventing injury; the relative ability of the parties to bear the financial burden of injury and the availability of means by which the loss may be shifted or spread; the body of statutes and judicial precedents which color the par 1983We recognize that neither of these issues has been adjudicated. 3 Among these are “[t]he social utility of the activity out of which the injury arises, compared with the risks involved in its conduct; the kind of person with whom the actor is dealing; the workability of a rule of care, especially in terms of the parties’ relative ability to adopt practical means of preventing injury; the relative ability of the parties to bear the financial burden of injury and the availability of means by which the loss may be shifted or spread; the body of statutes and judicial precedents which color the par | 4 | 5 |
Weirum v. RKO General, Inc.green2 sentences1977(Weirum v. R K O General, Inc. (1975) 15 Cal.3d 40, 46 [ 123 Cal.Rptr. 468 , 539 P.2d 36 ]; Rodriguez v. Bethlehem Steel Corp. (1974) 12 Cal.3d 382, 399 [ 115 Cal.Rptr. 765 , 525 P.2d 669 ]; Dillon v. Legg (1968) 68 Cal.2d 728, 739-741 [ 69 Cal.Rptr. 72 , 441 P.2d 912 , 29 A.L.R.3d 1316 ].) “In Raymond v. Paradise Unified School Dist. (1963) 218 Cal.App.2d 1, 8 [ 31 Cal.Rptr. 847 ], this court sought to capsulize the array of policy considerations underlying the duty of care issue: ‘The social utility of the activity out of which the injury arises, compared with the risks involved in its condu 1977(Weirum v. R K O General, Inc. (1975) 15 Cal.3d 40, 46 [ 123 Cal.Rptr. 468 , 539 P.2d 36 ]; Rodriguez v. Bethlehem Steel Corp. (1974) 12 Cal.3d 382, 399 [ 115 Cal.Rptr. 765 , 525 P.2d 669 ]; Dillon v. Legg (1968) 68 Cal.2d 728, 739-741 [ 69 Cal.Rptr. 72 , 441 P.2d 912 , 29 A.L.R.3d 1316 ].) “In Raymond v. Paradise Unified School Dist. (1963) 218 Cal.App.2d 1, 8 [ 31 Cal.Rptr. 847 ], this court sought to capsulize the array of policy considerations underlying the duty of care issue: ‘The social utility of the activity out of which the injury arises, compared with the risks involved in its condu | 2 | 2 |
Rodriguez v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.green2 sentences1977(Weirum v. R K O General, Inc. (1975) 15 Cal.3d 40, 46 [ 123 Cal.Rptr. 468 , 539 P.2d 36 ]; Rodriguez v. Bethlehem Steel Corp. (1974) 12 Cal.3d 382, 399 [ 115 Cal.Rptr. 765 , 525 P.2d 669 ]; Dillon v. Legg (1968) 68 Cal.2d 728, 739-741 [ 69 Cal.Rptr. 72 , 441 P.2d 912 , 29 A.L.R.3d 1316 ].) “In Raymond v. Paradise Unified School Dist. (1963) 218 Cal.App.2d 1, 8 [ 31 Cal.Rptr. 847 ], this court sought to capsulize the array of policy considerations underlying the duty of care issue: ‘The social utility of the activity out of which the injury arises, compared with the risks involved in its condu 1977(Weirum v. R K O General, Inc. (1975) 15 Cal.3d 40, 46 [ 123 Cal.Rptr. 468 , 539 P.2d 36 ]; Rodriguez v. Bethlehem Steel Corp. (1974) 12 Cal.3d 382, 399 [ 115 Cal.Rptr. 765 , 525 P.2d 669 ]; Dillon v. Legg (1968) 68 Cal.2d 728, 739-741 [ 69 Cal.Rptr. 72 , 441 P.2d 912 , 29 A.L.R.3d 1316 ].) “In Raymond v. Paradise Unified School Dist. (1963) 218 Cal.App.2d 1, 8 [ 31 Cal.Rptr. 847 ], this court sought to capsulize the array of policy considerations underlying the duty of care issue: ‘The social utility of the activity out of which the injury arises, compared with the risks involved in its condu | 2 | 2 |
Dillon v. Legggreen2 sentences1977(Weirum v. R K O General, Inc. (1975) 15 Cal.3d 40, 46 [ 123 Cal.Rptr. 468 , 539 P.2d 36 ]; Rodriguez v. Bethlehem Steel Corp. (1974) 12 Cal.3d 382, 399 [ 115 Cal.Rptr. 765 , 525 P.2d 669 ]; Dillon v. Legg (1968) 68 Cal.2d 728, 739-741 [ 69 Cal.Rptr. 72 , 441 P.2d 912 , 29 A.L.R.3d 1316 ].) “In Raymond v. Paradise Unified School Dist. (1963) 218 Cal.App.2d 1, 8 [ 31 Cal.Rptr. 847 ], this court sought to capsulize the array of policy considerations underlying the duty of care issue: ‘The social utility of the activity out of which the injury arises, compared with the risks involved in its condu 1977(Weirum v. R K O General, Inc. (1975) 15 Cal.3d 40, 46 [ 123 Cal.Rptr. 468 , 539 P.2d 36 ]; Rodriguez v. Bethlehem Steel Corp. (1974) 12 Cal.3d 382, 399 [ 115 Cal.Rptr. 765 , 525 P.2d 669 ]; Dillon v. Legg (1968) 68 Cal.2d 728, 739-741 [ 69 Cal.Rptr. 72 , 441 P.2d 912 , 29 A.L.R.3d 1316 ].) “In Raymond v. Paradise Unified School Dist. (1963) 218 Cal.App.2d 1, 8 [ 31 Cal.Rptr. 847 ], this court sought to capsulize the array of policy considerations underlying the duty of care issue: ‘The social utility of the activity out of which the injury arises, compared with the risks involved in its condu | 2 | 2 |
Amaya v. Home Ice, Fuel & Supply Co.green2 sentences1976Necessarily, however, the inquiry still does not stop there, for the concept of duty is far more complex. "... it should be recognized that `duty' is not sacrosanct in itself, but only an expression of the sum total of those considerations of policy which lead the law to say that the particular plaintiff is entitled to protection." (Prosser, Law of Torts (3d ed. 1964) pp. 332-333; Dillon v. Legg, supra, 68 Cal.2d at p. 734 .) In Raymond v. Paradise Unified School Dist. (1963) 218 Cal. App.2d 1, 8 [ 31 Cal. Rptr. 847 ], we summarized the policy considerations underlying the duty of care: "The s 1976Necessarily, however, the inquiry still does not stop there, for the concept of duty is far more complex. "... it should be recognized that `duty' is not sacrosanct in itself, but only an expression of the sum total of those considerations of policy which lead the law to say that the particular plaintiff is entitled to protection." (Prosser, Law of Torts (3d ed. 1964) pp. 332-333; Dillon v. Legg, supra, 68 Cal.2d at p. 734 .) In Raymond v. Paradise Unified School Dist. (1963) 218 Cal. App.2d 1, 8 [ 31 Cal. Rptr. 847 ], we summarized the policy considerations underlying the duty of care: "The s | 2 | 2 |
Munoz v. Davisgreen2 sentences2001(See, e.g., Martinez v. Bank of America, supra, 82 Cal.App.4th 883 [no connection between bank’s ownership through foreclosure on property and attack by dog of former owners who refused to surrender possession]; Scott v. Chevron U.S.A. (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 510 [ 6 Cal.Rptr.2d 810 ] [no connection between landowner’s conduct in placing electrical equipment on its easement near roadway and plaintiff’s injuries caused when drunk driver hit guardrail in front of equipment and struck plaintiff’s vehicle].) The existence of a duty relies upon application of the following factors: “ ‘The social utili 2001(See, e.g., Martinez v. Bank of America, supra, 82 Cal.App.4th 883 [no connection between bank’s ownership through foreclosure on property and attack by dog of former owners who refused to surrender possession]; Scott v. Chevron U.S.A. (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 510 [ 6 Cal.Rptr.2d 810 ] [no connection between landowner’s conduct in placing electrical equipment on its easement near roadway and plaintiff’s injuries caused when drunk driver hit guardrail in front of equipment and struck plaintiff’s vehicle].) The existence of a duty relies upon application of the following factors: “ ‘The social utili | 1 | 1 |
Niles v. City of San Rafaelgreen2 sentences1983We recognize that neither of these issues has been adjudicated. 3 Among these are “[t]he social utility of the activity out of which the injury arises, compared with the risks involved in its conduct; the kind of person with whom the actor is dealing; the workability of a rule of care, especially in terms of the parties’ relative ability to adopt practical means of preventing injury; the relative ability of the parties to bear the financial burden of injury and the availability of means by which the loss may be shifted or spread; the body of statutes and judicial precedents which color the par 1983We recognize that neither of these issues has been adjudicated. 3 Among these are “[t]he social utility of the activity out of which the injury arises, compared with the risks involved in its conduct; the kind of person with whom the actor is dealing; the workability of a rule of care, especially in terms of the parties’ relative ability to adopt practical means of preventing injury; the relative ability of the parties to bear the financial burden of injury and the availability of means by which the loss may be shifted or spread; the body of statutes and judicial precedents which color the par | 1 | 1 |
Commercial Standard Title Co. v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1983(See discussion post at p. 430.) 5 Public policy considerations were held to limit the AMA partial indemnity doctrine in Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher v. Superior Court (1979) 94 Cal.App.3d 347, 352 [ 156 Cal.Rptr. 326 ] (hg. den.); Commercial Standard Title Co. v. Superior Court (1979) 92 Cal.App.3d 934, 944-945 [ 155 Cal.Rptr. 393 ] (hg. den.); Goldfisher v. Superior Court, supra, 133 Cal.App.3d at page 23 . 6 Respondent’s brief at page 3. 1983(See discussion post at p. 430.) 5 Public policy considerations were held to limit the AMA partial indemnity doctrine in Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher v. Superior Court (1979) 94 Cal.App.3d 347, 352 [ 156 Cal.Rptr. 326 ] (hg. den.); Commercial Standard Title Co. v. Superior Court (1979) 92 Cal.App.3d 934, 944-945 [ 155 Cal.Rptr. 393 ] (hg. den.); Goldfisher v. Superior Court, supra, 133 Cal.App.3d at page 23 . 6 Respondent’s brief at page 3. | 1 | 1 |
Helling v. Lewgreen2 sentences1983We recognize that neither of these issues has been adjudicated. 3 Among these are “[t]he social utility of the activity out of which the injury arises, compared with the risks involved in its conduct; the kind of person with whom the actor is dealing; the workability of a rule of care, especially in terms of the parties’ relative ability to adopt practical means of preventing injury; the relative ability of the parties to bear the financial burden of injury and the availability of means by which the loss may be shifted or spread; the body of statutes and judicial precedents which color the par 1983We recognize that neither of these issues has been adjudicated. 3 Among these are “[t]he social utility of the activity out of which the injury arises, compared with the risks involved in its conduct; the kind of person with whom the actor is dealing; the workability of a rule of care, especially in terms of the parties’ relative ability to adopt practical means of preventing injury; the relative ability of the parties to bear the financial burden of injury and the availability of means by which the loss may be shifted or spread; the body of statutes and judicial precedents which color the par | 1 | 1 |
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher v. Superior Court of L.A. Cty.green2 sentences1983(See discussion post at p. 430.) 5 Public policy considerations were held to limit the AMA partial indemnity doctrine in Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher v. Superior Court (1979) 94 Cal.App.3d 347, 352 [ 156 Cal.Rptr. 326 ] (hg. den.); Commercial Standard Title Co. v. Superior Court (1979) 92 Cal.App.3d 934, 944-945 [ 155 Cal.Rptr. 393 ] (hg. den.); Goldfisher v. Superior Court, supra, 133 Cal.App.3d at page 23 . 6 Respondent’s brief at page 3. 1983(See discussion post at p. 430.) 5 Public policy considerations were held to limit the AMA partial indemnity doctrine in Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher v. Superior Court (1979) 94 Cal.App.3d 347, 352 [ 156 Cal.Rptr. 326 ] (hg. den.); Commercial Standard Title Co. v. Superior Court (1979) 92 Cal.App.3d 934, 944-945 [ 155 Cal.Rptr. 393 ] (hg. den.); Goldfisher v. Superior Court, supra, 133 Cal.App.3d at page 23 . 6 Respondent’s brief at page 3. | 1 | 1 |
Dewhirst v. Leopoldgreen2 sentences1983We recognize that neither of these issues has been adjudicated. 3 Among these are “[t]he social utility of the activity out of which the injury arises, compared with the risks involved in its conduct; the kind of person with whom the actor is dealing; the workability of a rule of care, especially in terms of the parties’ relative ability to adopt practical means of preventing injury; the relative ability of the parties to bear the financial burden of injury and the availability of means by which the loss may be shifted or spread; the body of statutes and judicial precedents which color the par 1983We recognize that neither of these issues has been adjudicated. 3 Among these are “[t]he social utility of the activity out of which the injury arises, compared with the risks involved in its conduct; the kind of person with whom the actor is dealing; the workability of a rule of care, especially in terms of the parties’ relative ability to adopt practical means of preventing injury; the relative ability of the parties to bear the financial burden of injury and the availability of means by which the loss may be shifted or spread; the body of statutes and judicial precedents which color the par | 1 | 1 |
Kindt v. Kauffmangreen2 sentences1977(Amaya v. Home Ice, Fuel & Supply Co. (1963) 59 Cal.2d 295, 309-315 [ 29 Cal.Rptr. 33 , 379 P.2d 513 ], overruled on other grounds in Dillon v. Legg, supra; see generally, Green, The Duty Problem in Negligence Cases (1928) 28 Colum.L.Rev. 1014; (1929) 29 Colum.L.Rev. 255.)” (Kindt v. Kauffman (1976) 57 Cal.App.3d 845, 867 [ 129 Cal.Rptr. 603 ].) This accords with the view of the Supreme Court. 1977(Amaya v. Home Ice, Fuel & Supply Co. (1963) 59 Cal.2d 295, 309-315 [ 29 Cal.Rptr. 33 , 379 P.2d 513 ], overruled on other grounds in Dillon v. Legg, supra; see generally, Green, The Duty Problem in Negligence Cases (1928) 28 Colum.L.Rev. 1014; (1929) 29 Colum.L.Rev. 255.)” (Kindt v. Kauffman (1976) 57 Cal.App.3d 845, 867 [ 129 Cal.Rptr. 603 ].) This accords with the view of the Supreme Court. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Martinez v. Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'n
green
1 sentence2001(See, e.g., Martinez v. Bank of America, supra, 82 Cal.App.4th 883 [no connection between bank’s ownership through foreclosure on property and attack by dog of former owners who refused to surrender possession]; Scott v. Chevron U.S.A. (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 510 [ 6 Cal.Rptr.2d 810 ] [no connection between landowner’s conduct in placing electrical equipment on its easement near roadway and plaintiff’s injuries caused when drunk driver hit guardrail in front of equipment and struck plaintiff’s vehicle].) The existence of a duty relies upon application of the following factors: “ ‘The social utili | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Scott v. Chevron U.S.A.
green
2 sentences2001(See, e.g., Martinez v. Bank of America, supra, 82 Cal.App.4th 883 [no connection between bank’s ownership through foreclosure on property and attack by dog of former owners who refused to surrender possession]; Scott v. Chevron U.S.A. (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 510 [ 6 Cal.Rptr.2d 810 ] [no connection between landowner’s conduct in placing electrical equipment on its easement near roadway and plaintiff’s injuries caused when drunk driver hit guardrail in front of equipment and struck plaintiff’s vehicle].) The existence of a duty relies upon application of the following factors: “ ‘The social utili 2001(See, e.g., Martinez v. Bank of America, supra, 82 Cal.App.4th 883 [no connection between bank’s ownership through foreclosure on property and attack by dog of former owners who refused to surrender possession]; Scott v. Chevron U.S.A. (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 510 [ 6 Cal.Rptr.2d 810 ] [no connection between landowner’s conduct in placing electrical equipment on its easement near roadway and plaintiff’s injuries caused when drunk driver hit guardrail in front of equipment and struck plaintiff’s vehicle].) The existence of a duty relies upon application of the following factors: “ ‘The social utili | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Goldfisher v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence1983(See discussion post at p. 430.) 5 Public policy considerations were held to limit the AMA partial indemnity doctrine in Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher v. Superior Court (1979) 94 Cal.App.3d 347, 352 [ 156 Cal.Rptr. 326 ] (hg. den.); Commercial Standard Title Co. v. Superior Court (1979) 92 Cal.App.3d 934, 944-945 [ 155 Cal.Rptr. 393 ] (hg. den.); Goldfisher v. Superior Court, supra, 133 Cal.App.3d at page 23 . 6 Respondent’s brief at page 3. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
State ex rel. Nebraska v. Brooks
green
1 sentence1983We recognize that neither of these issues has been adjudicated. 3 Among these are “[t]he social utility of the activity out of which the injury arises, compared with the risks involved in its conduct; the kind of person with whom the actor is dealing; the workability of a rule of care, especially in terms of the parties’ relative ability to adopt practical means of preventing injury; the relative ability of the parties to bear the financial burden of injury and the availability of means by which the loss may be shifted or spread; the body of statutes and judicial precedents which color the par | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Campbell v. Southern Pacific Co.
green
1 sentence1983We recognize that neither of these issues has been adjudicated. 3 Among these are “[t]he social utility of the activity out of which the injury arises, compared with the risks involved in its conduct; the kind of person with whom the actor is dealing; the workability of a rule of care, especially in terms of the parties’ relative ability to adopt practical means of preventing injury; the relative ability of the parties to bear the financial burden of injury and the availability of means by which the loss may be shifted or spread; the body of statutes and judicial precedents which color the par | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Blackwell v. American Film Co.
green
2 sentences1983We recognize that neither of these issues has been adjudicated. 3 Among these are “[t]he social utility of the activity out of which the injury arises, compared with the risks involved in its conduct; the kind of person with whom the actor is dealing; the workability of a rule of care, especially in terms of the parties’ relative ability to adopt practical means of preventing injury; the relative ability of the parties to bear the financial burden of injury and the availability of means by which the loss may be shifted or spread; the body of statutes and judicial precedents which color the par 1983We recognize that neither of these issues has been adjudicated. 3 Among these are “[t]he social utility of the activity out of which the injury arises, compared with the risks involved in its conduct; the kind of person with whom the actor is dealing; the workability of a rule of care, especially in terms of the parties’ relative ability to adopt practical means of preventing injury; the relative ability of the parties to bear the financial burden of injury and the availability of means by which the loss may be shifted or spread; the body of statutes and judicial precedents which color the par | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Rowland v. Christian
red
2 sentences1976Here the problem is squarely presented.” (Raymond v. Paradise Unified School Dist., supra, 218 Cal.App.2d 1 at pp. 8-9 [italics added].) In Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108 [ 70 Cal.Rptr. 97 , 443 P.2d 561 , 32 A.L.R.3d 496 ], the Supreme Court used similar terminology in defining various public policy considerations as exceptional factors which might alone warrant «owliability for negligence. 1976Here the problem is squarely presented.” (Raymond v. Paradise Unified School Dist., supra, 218 Cal.App.2d 1 at pp. 8-9 [italics added].) In Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108 [ 70 Cal.Rptr. 97 , 443 P.2d 561 , 32 A.L.R.3d 496 ], the Supreme Court used similar terminology in defining various public policy considerations as exceptional factors which might alone warrant «owliability for negligence. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Osgood v. Los Angeles Traction Co.
green
2 sentences1934(Holt v. Yellow Cab Co., 124 Cal. App. 385 [12 Pac. (2d) 472]; Sloan v. Original Stage Line, Inc., 124 Cal. App. 317 [ 12 Pac. (2d) 465 ]; Burke v. Dillingham, 84 Cal. App. 736 [ 258 Pac. 627 ]; Seney v. Pickwick Stages, 82 Cal. App. 226 [ 255 Pac. 279 ]; Harvey v. Dillingham, 81 Cal. App. 443 [ 253 Pac. 970 ]; Atkinson v. United Railroads of San Francisco, 71 Cal. App. 82 [ 234 Pac. 863 ]; Leitert v. Pickwick Stages, 68 Cal. App. 504 [ 229 Pac. 889 ].) The workability of the rule that the inference of negligence arises is the same under either theory, and is summed up in Osgood v. Los Angeles 1934(Holt v. Yellow Cab Co., 124 Cal. App. 385 [12 Pac. (2d) 472]; Sloan v. Original Stage Line, Inc., 124 Cal. App. 317 [ 12 Pac. (2d) 465 ]; Burke v. Dillingham, 84 Cal. App. 736 [ 258 Pac. 627 ]; Seney v. Pickwick Stages, 82 Cal. App. 226 [ 255 Pac. 279 ]; Harvey v. Dillingham, 81 Cal. App. 443 [ 253 Pac. 970 ]; Atkinson v. United Railroads of San Francisco, 71 Cal. App. 82 [ 234 Pac. 863 ]; Leitert v. Pickwick Stages, 68 Cal. App. 504 [ 229 Pac. 889 ].) The workability of the rule that the inference of negligence arises is the same under either theory, and is summed up in Osgood v. Los Angeles | 1 | 1934–1934 |
Holt v. Yellow Cab Co.
green
2 sentences1934(Holt v. Yellow Cab Co., 124 Cal. App. 385 [12 Pac. (2d) 472]; Sloan v. Original Stage Line, Inc., 124 Cal. App. 317 [ 12 Pac. (2d) 465 ]; Burke v. Dillingham, 84 Cal. App. 736 [ 258 Pac. 627 ]; Seney v. Pickwick Stages, 82 Cal. App. 226 [ 255 Pac. 279 ]; Harvey v. Dillingham, 81 Cal. App. 443 [ 253 Pac. 970 ]; Atkinson v. United Railroads of San Francisco, 71 Cal. App. 82 [ 234 Pac. 863 ]; Leitert v. Pickwick Stages, 68 Cal. App. 504 [ 229 Pac. 889 ].) The workability of the rule that the inference of negligence arises is the same under either theory, and is summed up in Osgood v. Los Angeles 1934(Holt v. Yellow Cab Co., 124 Cal. App. 385 [12 Pac. (2d) 472]; Sloan v. Original Stage Line, Inc., 124 Cal. App. 317 [ 12 Pac. (2d) 465 ]; Burke v. Dillingham, 84 Cal. App. 736 [ 258 Pac. 627 ]; Seney v. Pickwick Stages, 82 Cal. App. 226 [ 255 Pac. 279 ]; Harvey v. Dillingham, 81 Cal. App. 443 [ 253 Pac. 970 ]; Atkinson v. United Railroads of San Francisco, 71 Cal. App. 82 [ 234 Pac. 863 ]; Leitert v. Pickwick Stages, 68 Cal. App. 504 [ 229 Pac. 889 ].) The workability of the rule that the inference of negligence arises is the same under either theory, and is summed up in Osgood v. Los Angeles | 1 | 1934–1934 |
Atkinson v. United Railroads of San Francisco
green
2 sentences1934(Holt v. Yellow Cab Co., 124 Cal. App. 385 [12 Pac. (2d) 472]; Sloan v. Original Stage Line, Inc., 124 Cal. App. 317 [ 12 Pac. (2d) 465 ]; Burke v. Dillingham, 84 Cal. App. 736 [ 258 Pac. 627 ]; Seney v. Pickwick Stages, 82 Cal. App. 226 [ 255 Pac. 279 ]; Harvey v. Dillingham, 81 Cal. App. 443 [ 253 Pac. 970 ]; Atkinson v. United Railroads of San Francisco, 71 Cal. App. 82 [ 234 Pac. 863 ]; Leitert v. Pickwick Stages, 68 Cal. App. 504 [ 229 Pac. 889 ].) The workability of the rule that the inference of negligence arises is the same under either theory, and is summed up in Osgood v. Los Angeles 1934(Holt v. Yellow Cab Co., 124 Cal. App. 385 [12 Pac. (2d) 472]; Sloan v. Original Stage Line, Inc., 124 Cal. App. 317 [ 12 Pac. (2d) 465 ]; Burke v. Dillingham, 84 Cal. App. 736 [ 258 Pac. 627 ]; Seney v. Pickwick Stages, 82 Cal. App. 226 [ 255 Pac. 279 ]; Harvey v. Dillingham, 81 Cal. App. 443 [ 253 Pac. 970 ]; Atkinson v. United Railroads of San Francisco, 71 Cal. App. 82 [ 234 Pac. 863 ]; Leitert v. Pickwick Stages, 68 Cal. App. 504 [ 229 Pac. 889 ].) The workability of the rule that the inference of negligence arises is the same under either theory, and is summed up in Osgood v. Los Angeles | 1 | 1934–1934 |
Seney v. Pickwick Stages Northern Division, Inc.
green
2 sentences1934(Holt v. Yellow Cab Co., 124 Cal. App. 385 [12 Pac. (2d) 472]; Sloan v. Original Stage Line, Inc., 124 Cal. App. 317 [ 12 Pac. (2d) 465 ]; Burke v. Dillingham, 84 Cal. App. 736 [ 258 Pac. 627 ]; Seney v. Pickwick Stages, 82 Cal. App. 226 [ 255 Pac. 279 ]; Harvey v. Dillingham, 81 Cal. App. 443 [ 253 Pac. 970 ]; Atkinson v. United Railroads of San Francisco, 71 Cal. App. 82 [ 234 Pac. 863 ]; Leitert v. Pickwick Stages, 68 Cal. App. 504 [ 229 Pac. 889 ].) The workability of the rule that the inference of negligence arises is the same under either theory, and is summed up in Osgood v. Los Angeles 1934(Holt v. Yellow Cab Co., 124 Cal. App. 385 [12 Pac. (2d) 472]; Sloan v. Original Stage Line, Inc., 124 Cal. App. 317 [ 12 Pac. (2d) 465 ]; Burke v. Dillingham, 84 Cal. App. 736 [ 258 Pac. 627 ]; Seney v. Pickwick Stages, 82 Cal. App. 226 [ 255 Pac. 279 ]; Harvey v. Dillingham, 81 Cal. App. 443 [ 253 Pac. 970 ]; Atkinson v. United Railroads of San Francisco, 71 Cal. App. 82 [ 234 Pac. 863 ]; Leitert v. Pickwick Stages, 68 Cal. App. 504 [ 229 Pac. 889 ].) The workability of the rule that the inference of negligence arises is the same under either theory, and is summed up in Osgood v. Los Angeles | 1 | 1934–1934 |
Sloan v. Original Stage Line, Inc.
neutral
2 sentences1934(Holt v. Yellow Cab Co., 124 Cal. App. 385 [12 Pac. (2d) 472]; Sloan v. Original Stage Line, Inc., 124 Cal. App. 317 [ 12 Pac. (2d) 465 ]; Burke v. Dillingham, 84 Cal. App. 736 [ 258 Pac. 627 ]; Seney v. Pickwick Stages, 82 Cal. App. 226 [ 255 Pac. 279 ]; Harvey v. Dillingham, 81 Cal. App. 443 [ 253 Pac. 970 ]; Atkinson v. United Railroads of San Francisco, 71 Cal. App. 82 [ 234 Pac. 863 ]; Leitert v. Pickwick Stages, 68 Cal. App. 504 [ 229 Pac. 889 ].) The workability of the rule that the inference of negligence arises is the same under either theory, and is summed up in Osgood v. Los Angeles 1934(Holt v. Yellow Cab Co., 124 Cal. App. 385 [12 Pac. (2d) 472]; Sloan v. Original Stage Line, Inc., 124 Cal. App. 317 [ 12 Pac. (2d) 465 ]; Burke v. Dillingham, 84 Cal. App. 736 [ 258 Pac. 627 ]; Seney v. Pickwick Stages, 82 Cal. App. 226 [ 255 Pac. 279 ]; Harvey v. Dillingham, 81 Cal. App. 443 [ 253 Pac. 970 ]; Atkinson v. United Railroads of San Francisco, 71 Cal. App. 82 [ 234 Pac. 863 ]; Leitert v. Pickwick Stages, 68 Cal. App. 504 [ 229 Pac. 889 ].) The workability of the rule that the inference of negligence arises is the same under either theory, and is summed up in Osgood v. Los Angeles | 1 | 1934–1934 |
Burke v. Dillingham
green
2 sentences1934(Holt v. Yellow Cab Co., 124 Cal. App. 385 [12 Pac. (2d) 472]; Sloan v. Original Stage Line, Inc., 124 Cal. App. 317 [ 12 Pac. (2d) 465 ]; Burke v. Dillingham, 84 Cal. App. 736 [ 258 Pac. 627 ]; Seney v. Pickwick Stages, 82 Cal. App. 226 [ 255 Pac. 279 ]; Harvey v. Dillingham, 81 Cal. App. 443 [ 253 Pac. 970 ]; Atkinson v. United Railroads of San Francisco, 71 Cal. App. 82 [ 234 Pac. 863 ]; Leitert v. Pickwick Stages, 68 Cal. App. 504 [ 229 Pac. 889 ].) The workability of the rule that the inference of negligence arises is the same under either theory, and is summed up in Osgood v. Los Angeles 1934(Holt v. Yellow Cab Co., 124 Cal. App. 385 [12 Pac. (2d) 472]; Sloan v. Original Stage Line, Inc., 124 Cal. App. 317 [ 12 Pac. (2d) 465 ]; Burke v. Dillingham, 84 Cal. App. 736 [ 258 Pac. 627 ]; Seney v. Pickwick Stages, 82 Cal. App. 226 [ 255 Pac. 279 ]; Harvey v. Dillingham, 81 Cal. App. 443 [ 253 Pac. 970 ]; Atkinson v. United Railroads of San Francisco, 71 Cal. App. 82 [ 234 Pac. 863 ]; Leitert v. Pickwick Stages, 68 Cal. App. 504 [ 229 Pac. 889 ].) The workability of the rule that the inference of negligence arises is the same under either theory, and is summed up in Osgood v. Los Angeles | 1 | 1934–1934 |
Leitert v. Pickwick Stages, Northern Division, Inc.
green
2 sentences1934(Holt v. Yellow Cab Co., 124 Cal. App. 385 [12 Pac. (2d) 472]; Sloan v. Original Stage Line, Inc., 124 Cal. App. 317 [ 12 Pac. (2d) 465 ]; Burke v. Dillingham, 84 Cal. App. 736 [ 258 Pac. 627 ]; Seney v. Pickwick Stages, 82 Cal. App. 226 [ 255 Pac. 279 ]; Harvey v. Dillingham, 81 Cal. App. 443 [ 253 Pac. 970 ]; Atkinson v. United Railroads of San Francisco, 71 Cal. App. 82 [ 234 Pac. 863 ]; Leitert v. Pickwick Stages, 68 Cal. App. 504 [ 229 Pac. 889 ].) The workability of the rule that the inference of negligence arises is the same under either theory, and is summed up in Osgood v. Los Angeles 1934(Holt v. Yellow Cab Co., 124 Cal. App. 385 [12 Pac. (2d) 472]; Sloan v. Original Stage Line, Inc., 124 Cal. App. 317 [ 12 Pac. (2d) 465 ]; Burke v. Dillingham, 84 Cal. App. 736 [ 258 Pac. 627 ]; Seney v. Pickwick Stages, 82 Cal. App. 226 [ 255 Pac. 279 ]; Harvey v. Dillingham, 81 Cal. App. 443 [ 253 Pac. 970 ]; Atkinson v. United Railroads of San Francisco, 71 Cal. App. 82 [ 234 Pac. 863 ]; Leitert v. Pickwick Stages, 68 Cal. App. 504 [ 229 Pac. 889 ].) The workability of the rule that the inference of negligence arises is the same under either theory, and is summed up in Osgood v. Los Angeles | 1 | 1934–1934 |
Horney v. Dillingham
green
2 sentences1934(Holt v. Yellow Cab Co., 124 Cal. App. 385 [12 Pac. (2d) 472]; Sloan v. Original Stage Line, Inc., 124 Cal. App. 317 [ 12 Pac. (2d) 465 ]; Burke v. Dillingham, 84 Cal. App. 736 [ 258 Pac. 627 ]; Seney v. Pickwick Stages, 82 Cal. App. 226 [ 255 Pac. 279 ]; Harvey v. Dillingham, 81 Cal. App. 443 [ 253 Pac. 970 ]; Atkinson v. United Railroads of San Francisco, 71 Cal. App. 82 [ 234 Pac. 863 ]; Leitert v. Pickwick Stages, 68 Cal. App. 504 [ 229 Pac. 889 ].) The workability of the rule that the inference of negligence arises is the same under either theory, and is summed up in Osgood v. Los Angeles 1934(Holt v. Yellow Cab Co., 124 Cal. App. 385 [12 Pac. (2d) 472]; Sloan v. Original Stage Line, Inc., 124 Cal. App. 317 [ 12 Pac. (2d) 465 ]; Burke v. Dillingham, 84 Cal. App. 736 [ 258 Pac. 627 ]; Seney v. Pickwick Stages, 82 Cal. App. 226 [ 255 Pac. 279 ]; Harvey v. Dillingham, 81 Cal. App. 443 [ 253 Pac. 970 ]; Atkinson v. United Railroads of San Francisco, 71 Cal. App. 82 [ 234 Pac. 863 ]; Leitert v. Pickwick Stages, 68 Cal. App. 504 [ 229 Pac. 889 ].) The workability of the rule that the inference of negligence arises is the same under either theory, and is summed up in Osgood v. Los Angeles | 1 | 1934–1934 |
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.