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 1907–2014 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 |
|---|---|---|
Quigley v. Pet, Inc.green2 sentences1985(Cf. Quigley v. Pet, Inc. (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 877, 893-894 [ 208 Cal.Rptr. 394 ].) 10 Otherwise, there was no provision in this instruction to explain the elements of proof necessary to provide the basis for finding damage, even assuming liability were established. 1985(Cf. Quigley v. Pet, Inc. (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 877, 893-894 [ 208 Cal.Rptr. 394 ].) 10 Otherwise, there was no provision in this instruction to explain the elements of proof necessary to provide the basis for finding damage, even assuming liability were established. | 1 | 1 |
Brewer v. Second Baptist Churchgreen2 sentences1970The vice of the instruction lies in its disjunctive phrase, which amounts to a statement that mere negligence in inquiry amounts to malice. “[Ojrdinarily the privilege is lost if defendant had no reasonable grounds for believing his statements to be true” (Brewer v. Second Baptist Church, 32 Cal.2d 791, 797 [ 197 P.2d 713 ]). 1970The vice of the instruction lies in its disjunctive phrase, which amounts to a statement that mere negligence in inquiry amounts to malice. “[Ojrdinarily the privilege is lost if defendant had no reasonable grounds for believing his statements to be true” (Brewer v. Second Baptist Church, 32 Cal.2d 791, 797 [ 197 P.2d 713 ]). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Smith v. Belshaw
green
2 sentences1907This feature of the rule upon the “conflict” of evidence has been heretofore declared by this court.' In Smith v. Belshaw, 89 Cal. 427 , [ 26 Pac. 834 ], the court said: “While we will not disturb the verdict of a jury where the evidence is conflicting upon substantial matters, yet in all cases the verdict must have some meritorious support from the evidence or be set aside and disregarded.” In Hedge v. Williams, 131 Cal. 459 , [ 82 Am. 1907This feature of the rule upon the “conflict” of evidence has been heretofore declared by this court.' In Smith v. Belshaw, 89 Cal. 427 , [ 26 Pac. 834 ], the court said: “While we will not disturb the verdict of a jury where the evidence is conflicting upon substantial matters, yet in all cases the verdict must have some meritorious support from the evidence or be set aside and disregarded.” In Hedge v. Williams, 131 Cal. 459 , [ 82 Am. | 2 | 1907–1936 |
Hedge v. Williams
green
2 sentences1936In Smith v. Belshaw, 89 Cal. 427 [ 26 Pac. 834 ], the court said: ‘While we will not disturb the verdict of a jury where the evidence is conflicting upon substantial matters, yet in all eases the verdict must have some meritorious support from the evidence or be set aside and disregarded.’ In Hedge v. Williams, 131 Cal. 455 [ 82 Am. 1907This feature of the rule upon the “conflict” of evidence has been heretofore declared by this court.' In Smith v. Belshaw, 89 Cal. 427 , [ 26 Pac. 834 ], the court said: “While we will not disturb the verdict of a jury where the evidence is conflicting upon substantial matters, yet in all cases the verdict must have some meritorious support from the evidence or be set aside and disregarded.” In Hedge v. Williams, 131 Cal. 459 , [ 82 Am. | 2 | 1907–1936 |
Oddone v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence2014(Oddone v. Superior Court, supra, 179 Cal.App.4th at p. 819 .) There is “an important feature of the analysis” that must be taken into account when we apply Rowland. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Cabral v. Ralphs Grocery Co.
green
1 sentence2014(Cabral, supra, 51 Cal.4th at p. 772 .) “[T]he Rowland factors are evaluated at a relatively broad level of factual generality. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Brunnings v. Townsend
neutral
1 sentence1936In Smith v. Belshaw, 89 Cal. 427 [ 26 P. 834 ], the court said: 'While we will not disturb the verdict of a jury where the evidence is conflicting upon substantial matters, yet in all cases the verdict must have some meritorious support from the evidence or be set aside and disregarded.' In Hedge v. Williams, 131 Cal. 455 [ 82 Am.St.Rep. 366 , 63 P. 721 , 64 P. 106 ], the court says: 'Upon the part of respondent it is insisted that the verdict of the jury is conclusive as to the capacity in which Fontain was acting in repairing the tank. | 1 | 1936–1936 |
Vierra v. New York Life Ins. Co.
green
2 sentences1936Co., 119 Cal. App. 352 [ 6 Pac. (2d) 349 ].) With respect to the feature of waiver it is proper further to observe that appellant’s contention that no waiver of any provision of the policy could be accomplished by an agent of the insurer is based on the assumption that the fact of intemperance of the insured was established by the evidence. 1936Co., 119 Cal. App. 352 [ 6 Pac. (2d) 349 ].) With respect to the feature of waiver it is proper further to observe that appellant’s contention that no waiver of any provision of the policy could be accomplished by an agent of the insurer is based on the assumption that the fact of intemperance of the insured was established by the evidence. | 1 | 1936–1936 |
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.