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.
6 California opinions name it 1 courts 1956–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Cowles v. Cartergreen1 sentence2026(Hart v. Darwish (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 218, 226 , italics added (Hart); see Cowles v. Carter (1981) 115 Cal.App.3d 350, 353 [stating that “if the trial judge denies a motion for nonsuit and permits a question of fact to go to the jury, he has, of necessity, decided there is sufficient evidence to permit the jury to determine that issue”].) The trial court in its statement of decision regarding Royal Coach’s malicious prosecution action explained the circumstances under which Royal Coach’s nonsuit motion was denied in the underlying employment action. | 1 | 1 |
Carson v. Facilities Development Co.green2 sentences2007(Carson v. Facilities Development Co. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 830, 838 [ 206 Cal.Rptr. 136 , 686 P.2d 656 ].) The granting of a nonsuit motion is warranted when, disregarding conflicting evidence, giving plaintiff’s evidence all the value to which it is legally entitled, and indulging in every legitimate inference that may be drawn from the evidence, the trial court determines that there is no sufficiently substantial evidence to support a verdict in plaintiff’s favor. 2007(Carson v. Facilities Development Co. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 830, 838 [ 206 Cal.Rptr. 136 , 686 P.2d 656 ].) The granting of a nonsuit motion is warranted when, disregarding conflicting evidence, giving plaintiff’s evidence all the value to which it is legally entitled, and indulging in every legitimate inference that may be drawn from the evidence, the trial court determines that there is no sufficiently substantial evidence to support a verdict in plaintiff’s favor. | 1 | 1 |
MacHado v. Department of Motor Vehiclesgreen2 sentences2002(Machado v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1687, 1692 [ 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 457 ].)” (Villalobos v. Zolin (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 556, 558 [ 41 Cal.Rptr.2d 207 ].) But the determinative question in this case is one of statutory construction of section 14602.6, and consequently is a question of law. 2002(Machado v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1687, 1692 [ 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 457 ].)” (Villalobos v. Zolin (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 556, 558 [ 41 Cal.Rptr.2d 207 ].) But the determinative question in this case is one of statutory construction of section 14602.6, and consequently is a question of law. | 1 | 1 |
Villalobos v. Zolingreen2 sentences2002(Machado v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1687, 1692 [ 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 457 ].)” (Villalobos v. Zolin (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 556, 558 [ 41 Cal.Rptr.2d 207 ].) But the determinative question in this case is one of statutory construction of section 14602.6, and consequently is a question of law. 2002(Machado v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1687, 1692 [ 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 457 ].)” (Villalobos v. Zolin (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 556, 558 [ 41 Cal.Rptr.2d 207 ].) But the determinative question in this case is one of statutory construction of section 14602.6, and consequently is a question of law. | 1 | 1 |
Burge v. Department of Motor Vehiclesgreen2 sentences1995(E.g., Davenport v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 133, 139 [ 7 Cal.Rptr.2d 818 ], review den; Burge v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 384, 388-389 [ 7 Cal.Rptr.2d 5 ], review den.) Indeed, we ourselves adopted this view in Imachi v. Department of Motor Vehicles, supra, 2 Cal.App.4th at pages. 815-816, while holding that a traffic officer’s report was not admissible with respect to compound hearsay it contained. 2 Appellant suggests that the evidence before the hearing officer did not satisfactorily show that the documents were in fact made by a public emp 1995(E.g., Davenport v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 133, 139 [ 7 Cal.Rptr.2d 818 ], review den; Burge v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 384, 388-389 [ 7 Cal.Rptr.2d 5 ], review den.) Indeed, we ourselves adopted this view in Imachi v. Department of Motor Vehicles, supra, 2 Cal.App.4th at pages. 815-816, while holding that a traffic officer’s report was not admissible with respect to compound hearsay it contained. 2 Appellant suggests that the evidence before the hearing officer did not satisfactorily show that the documents were in fact made by a public emp | 1 | 1 |
Davenport v. Department of Motor Vehiclesgreen2 sentences1995(E.g., Davenport v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 133, 139 [ 7 Cal.Rptr.2d 818 ], review den; Burge v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 384, 388-389 [ 7 Cal.Rptr.2d 5 ], review den.) Indeed, we ourselves adopted this view in Imachi v. Department of Motor Vehicles, supra, 2 Cal.App.4th at pages. 815-816, while holding that a traffic officer’s report was not admissible with respect to compound hearsay it contained. 2 Appellant suggests that the evidence before the hearing officer did not satisfactorily show that the documents were in fact made by a public emp 1995(E.g., Davenport v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 133, 139 [ 7 Cal.Rptr.2d 818 ], review den; Burge v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 384, 388-389 [ 7 Cal.Rptr.2d 5 ], review den.) Indeed, we ourselves adopted this view in Imachi v. Department of Motor Vehicles, supra, 2 Cal.App.4th at pages. 815-816, while holding that a traffic officer’s report was not admissible with respect to compound hearsay it contained. 2 Appellant suggests that the evidence before the hearing officer did not satisfactorily show that the documents were in fact made by a public emp | 1 | 1 |
Hohreiter v. Garrisongreen2 sentences1956It has been held in Cooper v. State Board of Medical Examiners, 35 Cal.2d 242 [ 217 P.2d 630 , 18 A.L.R.2d 593 ], with respect to Government Code, section 11517, subdivision (c) “that an agency member who exercises his own independent judgment on the case . . . must be acquainted with the record but need not be physically present when the evidence is produced.” In Hohreiter v. Garrison, 81 Cal.App.2d 384, 398 [ 184 P.2d 323 ], it is said that in such a situation the agency must “review” the evidence. 1956It has been held in Cooper v. State Board of Medical Examiners, 35 Cal.2d 242 [ 217 P.2d 630 , 18 A.L.R.2d 593 ], with respect to Government Code, section 11517, subdivision (c) “that an agency member who exercises his own independent judgment on the case . . . must be acquainted with the record but need not be physically present when the evidence is produced.” In Hohreiter v. Garrison, 81 Cal.App.2d 384, 398 [ 184 P.2d 323 ], it is said that in such a situation the agency must “review” the evidence. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hart v. Darwish
green
1 sentence2026(Hart v. Darwish (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 218, 226 , italics added (Hart); see Cowles v. Carter (1981) 115 Cal.App.3d 350, 353 [stating that “if the trial judge denies a motion for nonsuit and permits a question of fact to go to the jury, he has, of necessity, decided there is sufficient evidence to permit the jury to determine that issue”].) The trial court in its statement of decision regarding Royal Coach’s malicious prosecution action explained the circumstances under which Royal Coach’s nonsuit motion was denied in the underlying employment action. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Timmsen v. Forest E. Olson, Inc.
green
1 sentence2026Olson, Inc. (1970) 6 Cal.App.3d 860, 867-868 .) In the latter situation, a nonsuit motion at the conclusion of the plaintiff’s case “tests the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s evidence before the defense is presented. [Citation.]” (County of Kern v. Sparks (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 11, 16 .) In this latter situation, “a ruling denying the prior defendant’s motion for nonsuit, if based on an evaluation of the evidence,” indicates that the prior case was legally tenable for purposes of determining the existence of probable cause. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
County of Kern v. Sparks
green
1 sentence2026Olson, Inc. (1970) 6 Cal.App.3d 860, 867-868 .) In the latter situation, a nonsuit motion at the conclusion of the plaintiff’s case “tests the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s evidence before the defense is presented. [Citation.]” (County of Kern v. Sparks (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 11, 16 .) In this latter situation, “a ruling denying the prior defendant’s motion for nonsuit, if based on an evaluation of the evidence,” indicates that the prior case was legally tenable for purposes of determining the existence of probable cause. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Lake v. Reed
green
2 sentences2003(Evid.Code, § 1280; Lake v. Reed, supra, 16 Cal.4th at p. 461 , 65 Cal.Rptr.2d 860 , 940 P.2d 311 .) Therefore, contrary to the trial court's ruling, the evidence before the hearing officer supported the DMV's determination that Lawrence had reasonable cause to believe MacDonald was driving under the influence so as to justify the initial stop. (§ 13557, subd. (b)(2)(A).) Consequently, the DMV's decision to sustain the suspension of MacDonald's license was proper. 2003(Evid.Code, § 1280; Lake v. Reed, supra, 16 Cal.4th at p. 461 , 65 Cal.Rptr.2d 860 , 940 P.2d 311 .) Therefore, contrary to the trial court's ruling, the evidence before the hearing officer supported the DMV's determination that Lawrence had reasonable cause to believe MacDonald was driving under the influence so as to justify the initial stop. (§ 13557, subd. (b)(2)(A).) Consequently, the DMV's decision to sustain the suspension of MacDonald's license was proper. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Cooper v. State Board of Medical Examiners
green
2 sentences1956It has been held in Cooper v. State Board of Medical Examiners, 35 Cal.2d 242 [ 217 P.2d 630 , 18 A.L.R.2d 593 ], with respect to Government Code, section 11517, subdivision (c) “that an agency member who exercises his own independent judgment on the case . . . must be acquainted with the record but need not be physically present when the evidence is produced.” In Hohreiter v. Garrison, 81 Cal.App.2d 384, 398 [ 184 P.2d 323 ], it is said that in such a situation the agency must “review” the evidence. 1956It has been held in Cooper v. State Board of Medical Examiners, 35 Cal.2d 242 [ 217 P.2d 630 , 18 A.L.R.2d 593 ], with respect to Government Code, section 11517, subdivision (c) “that an agency member who exercises his own independent judgment on the case . . . must be acquainted with the record but need not be physically present when the evidence is produced.” In Hohreiter v. Garrison, 81 Cal.App.2d 384, 398 [ 184 P.2d 323 ], it is said that in such a situation the agency must “review” the evidence. | 1 | 1956–1956 |
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.