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 2 courts 1920–1979 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. Bouladgreen2 sentences1979(People v. Boulad (1965) 235 Cal.App.2d 118, 126 [ 45 Cal.Rptr. 104 ] and cases cited therein; United States v. Hitchcock (9th Cir. 1972) 467 F.2d 1107 .) Appellants, however, rely on North v. Superior Court (1972) 8 Cal.3d 301 [ 104 Cal.Rptr. 833 , 502 P.2d 1305 , 57 A.L.R.3d 155 ] in an attempt to fit their case within an exception to the above rule. 1979(People v. Boulad (1965) 235 Cal.App.2d 118, 126 [ 45 Cal.Rptr. 104 ] and cases cited therein; United States v. Hitchcock (9th Cir. 1972) 467 F.2d 1107 .) Appellants, however, rely on North v. Superior Court (1972) 8 Cal.3d 301 [ 104 Cal.Rptr. 833 , 502 P.2d 1305 , 57 A.L.R.3d 155 ] in an attempt to fit their case within an exception to the above rule. | 1 | 1 |
City of Redlands v. Nickersongreen1 sentence1966There would be merit to appellants’ position if the right-of-way had then represented the outer boundary of Mrs. Hay’s entire holdings, since the “marginal street” doctrine would then apply. 3 Instead, because of the bisecting street (or right-of-way, in this case), the exception to the above doctrine applies : “Obviously the rule does not apply where the grantor’s property is bisected by a street.” (City of Redlands v. Nickerson, 188 Cal.App.2d 118, 128 [10 Cal.Rptr 431].) Accordingly, the trial court properly concluded that when Mrs. Hay divested herself of the property described in the *656 | 1 | 1 |
Puchta v. Rothmangreen2 sentences1959(See Puchta v. Rothman, 99 Cal.App.2d 285, 287 [ 221 P.2d 744 ].) The conditions necessary to bring this doctrine into play are stated in section 339, Restatement of Torts. 1959(See Puchta v. Rothman, 99 Cal.App.2d 285, 287 [ 221 P.2d 744 ].) The conditions necessary to bring this doctrine into play are stated in section 339, Restatement of Torts. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
North v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences1979(People v. Boulad (1965) 235 Cal.App.2d 118, 126 [ 45 Cal.Rptr. 104 ] and cases cited therein; United States v. Hitchcock (9th Cir. 1972) 467 F.2d 1107 .) Appellants, however, rely on North v. Superior Court (1972) 8 Cal.3d 301 [ 104 Cal.Rptr. 833 , 502 P.2d 1305 , 57 A.L.R.3d 155 ] in an attempt to fit their case within an exception to the above rule. 1979(People v. Boulad (1965) 235 Cal.App.2d 118, 126 [ 45 Cal.Rptr. 104 ] and cases cited therein; United States v. Hitchcock (9th Cir. 1972) 467 F.2d 1107 .) Appellants, however, rely on North v. Superior Court (1972) 8 Cal.3d 301 [ 104 Cal.Rptr. 833 , 502 P.2d 1305 , 57 A.L.R.3d 155 ] in an attempt to fit their case within an exception to the above rule. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
United States v. Benjamin Hitchcock
green
1 sentence1979(People v. Boulad (1965) 235 Cal.App.2d 118, 126 [ 45 Cal.Rptr. 104 ] and cases cited therein; United States v. Hitchcock (9th Cir. 1972) 467 F.2d 1107 .) Appellants, however, rely on North v. Superior Court (1972) 8 Cal.3d 301 [ 104 Cal.Rptr. 833 , 502 P.2d 1305 , 57 A.L.R.3d 155 ] in an attempt to fit their case within an exception to the above rule. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Swart v. Swart
neutral
2 sentences1963(Swart v. Swart (1942) 49 Cal.App.2d 48 [ 120 P.2d 942 ].) However, there is an exception to the above rule in cases of wrongful death. 1963(Swart v. Swart (1942) 49 Cal.App.2d 48 [ 120 P.2d 942 ].) However, there is an exception to the above rule in cases of wrongful death. | 1 | 1963–1963 |
Barrett v. Southern Pacific Co.
green
2 sentences1959Company (1891), 91 Cal. 296 [ 27 P. 666 , 25 Am.St.Rep. 186 ], California has recognized an exception to the above rule in the form of the attractive nuisance doctrine. 1959Company (1891), 91 Cal. 296 [ 27 P. 666 , 25 Am.St.Rep. 186 ], California has recognized an exception to the above rule in the form of the attractive nuisance doctrine. | 1 | 1959–1959 |
Saks & Co. v. City of Beverly Hills
green
2 sentences1958As stated in the Damiani case, supra, at page 17, “the court is confined to whether there was substantial evidence before the commission to support its findings.” In the Fascination case, supra, the court stated, at page 264, that “the trial court is limited to an examination of the matters considered and examined by the officers in arriving at their decision; to an ascertainment of whether such matters were sufficient to justify denying the license.” Plaintiffs urge that an exception to the above rule prohibiting a trial de novo exists when it is alleged that the local agency acted fraudulent 1958As stated in the Damiani case, supra, at page 17, “the court is confined to whether there was substantial evidence before the commission to support its findings.” In the Fascination case, supra, the court stated, at page 264, that “the trial court is limited to an examination of the matters considered and examined by the officers in arriving at their decision; to an ascertainment of whether such matters were sufficient to justify denying the license.” Plaintiffs urge that an exception to the above rule prohibiting a trial de novo exists when it is alleged that the local agency acted fraudulent | 1 | 1958–1958 |
Campbell v. Wright
green
2 sentences1920She therefore prayed that ■her said letters of guardianship be not revoked. *357 [1] At the hearing had upon said petition and answer the appellant merely put in evidence the certificate of restoration to capacity, and rested, relying upon the rule that unless some good reason exists based upon what appears to be the best interests of the children she, as their surviving parent, is entitled to be appointed their guardian. (21 Cyc. 34; Guardianship of Salter, 142 Cal. 412 , [ 76 Pac. 51 ]; In re Campbell, 130 Cal. 380 , [ 62 Pac. 613 ].) The difficulty at the bottom of appellant’s case, however 1920She therefore prayed that ■her said letters of guardianship be not revoked. *357 [1] At the hearing had upon said petition and answer the appellant merely put in evidence the certificate of restoration to capacity, and rested, relying upon the rule that unless some good reason exists based upon what appears to be the best interests of the children she, as their surviving parent, is entitled to be appointed their guardian. (21 Cyc. 34; Guardianship of Salter, 142 Cal. 412 , [ 76 Pac. 51 ]; In re Campbell, 130 Cal. 380 , [ 62 Pac. 613 ].) The difficulty at the bottom of appellant’s case, however | 1 | 1920–1920 |
Guardianship of Salter
green
2 sentences1920She therefore prayed that ■her said letters of guardianship be not revoked. *357 [1] At the hearing had upon said petition and answer the appellant merely put in evidence the certificate of restoration to capacity, and rested, relying upon the rule that unless some good reason exists based upon what appears to be the best interests of the children she, as their surviving parent, is entitled to be appointed their guardian. (21 Cyc. 34; Guardianship of Salter, 142 Cal. 412 , [ 76 Pac. 51 ]; In re Campbell, 130 Cal. 380 , [ 62 Pac. 613 ].) The difficulty at the bottom of appellant’s case, however 1920She therefore prayed that ■her said letters of guardianship be not revoked. *357 [1] At the hearing had upon said petition and answer the appellant merely put in evidence the certificate of restoration to capacity, and rested, relying upon the rule that unless some good reason exists based upon what appears to be the best interests of the children she, as their surviving parent, is entitled to be appointed their guardian. (21 Cyc. 34; Guardianship of Salter, 142 Cal. 412 , [ 76 Pac. 51 ]; In re Campbell, 130 Cal. 380 , [ 62 Pac. 613 ].) The difficulty at the bottom of appellant’s case, however | 1 | 1920–1920 |
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.