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 3 courts 1975–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
Adams v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co.green2 sentences2017In affirming the judgment after the defendant's demurrer was sustained, the Court of Appeal determined stare decisis required adherence to the rule in Fifield Manor v. Finston (1960) 54 Cal.2d 632 , 7 Cal.Rptr. 377 , 354 P.2d 1073 ( Fifield ). 9 ( Adams, supra, 50 Cal.App.3d at p. 40 , 123 Cal.Rptr. 216 .) Adams described the " Fifield rule" as "an expression of a general doctrine prevailing in American courts which bars recovery for negligent interference with profitable economic relations." ( Adams, supra, 50 Cal.App.3d at p. 40 , 123 Cal.Rptr. 216 , fn. omitted.) Accordingly, the Adams cour 2017In affirming the judgment after the defendant's demurrer was sustained, the Court of Appeal determined stare decisis required adherence to the rule in Fifield Manor v. Finston (1960) 54 Cal.2d 632 , 7 Cal.Rptr. 377 , 354 P.2d 1073 ( Fifield ). 9 ( Adams, supra, 50 Cal.App.3d at p. 40 , 123 Cal.Rptr. 216 .) Adams described the " Fifield rule" as "an expression of a general doctrine prevailing in American courts which bars recovery for negligent interference with profitable economic relations." ( Adams, supra, 50 Cal.App.3d at p. 40 , 123 Cal.Rptr. 216 , fn. omitted.) Accordingly, the Adams cour | 1 | 5 |
Costello v. Wells Fargo Bankgreen2 sentences1975The Ohio court stated: “It is our opinion that the courts generally have reached a wise result in limiting claims for damages in this class of cases to who [57c] may have sustained personal injuries or physical property damage and in refusing to open their doors in such cases to claims of loss of wages and other economic loss based on contract.” (Stevenson v. East Ohio Gas Co., 47 Ohio L.Abs. 586 [ 73 N.E.2d 200 , 204], quoted in Fifield Manor v. Finston, supra, 54 Cal.2d at p. 636 .) The Fifield rule was reiterated in Costello v. Wells Fargo Bank (1968) 258 Cal.App.2d 90, 94-96 [ 65 Cal.Rptr. 1975The Ohio court stated: “It is our opinion that the courts generally have reached a wise result in limiting claims for damages in this class of cases to who [57c] may have sustained personal injuries or physical property damage and in refusing to open their doors in such cases to claims of loss of wages and other economic loss based on contract.” (Stevenson v. East Ohio Gas Co., 47 Ohio L.Abs. 586 [ 73 N.E.2d 200 , 204], quoted in Fifield Manor v. Finston, supra, 54 Cal.2d at p. 636 .) The Fifield rule was reiterated in Costello v. Wells Fargo Bank (1968) 258 Cal.App.2d 90, 94-96 [ 65 Cal.Rptr. | 1 | 1 |
Stromer v. City of Yuba Citygreen2 sentences1975The Ohio court stated: “It is our opinion that the courts generally have reached a wise result in limiting claims for damages in this class of cases to who [57c] may have sustained personal injuries or physical property damage and in refusing to open their doors in such cases to claims of loss of wages and other economic loss based on contract.” (Stevenson v. East Ohio Gas Co., 47 Ohio L.Abs. 586 [ 73 N.E.2d 200 , 204], quoted in Fifield Manor v. Finston, supra, 54 Cal.2d at p. 636 .) The Fifield rule was reiterated in Costello v. Wells Fargo Bank (1968) 258 Cal.App.2d 90, 94-96 [ 65 Cal.Rptr. 1975The Ohio court stated: “It is our opinion that the courts generally have reached a wise result in limiting claims for damages in this class of cases to who [57c] may have sustained personal injuries or physical property damage and in refusing to open their doors in such cases to claims of loss of wages and other economic loss based on contract.” (Stevenson v. East Ohio Gas Co., 47 Ohio L.Abs. 586 [ 73 N.E.2d 200 , 204], quoted in Fifield Manor v. Finston, supra, 54 Cal.2d at p. 636 .) The Fifield rule was reiterated in Costello v. Wells Fargo Bank (1968) 258 Cal.App.2d 90, 94-96 [ 65 Cal.Rptr. | 1 | 1 |
Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1975As an intermediate appellate court, we must decide the liability issue in conformity with the state Supreme Court's last utterance in point. ( Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455 [ 25 Cal. Rptr. 321 , 369 P.2d 937 ]; 6 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (2d ed. 1971) Appeal, §§ 656, 664.) Plaintiffs argue that Fifield and its companion decisions are not in point. 1975As an intermediate appellate court, we must decide the liability issue in conformity with the state Supreme Court's last utterance in point. ( Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455 [ 25 Cal. Rptr. 321 , 369 P.2d 937 ]; 6 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (2d ed. 1971) Appeal, §§ 656, 664.) Plaintiffs argue that Fifield and its companion decisions are not in point. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Fifield Manor v. Finston
green
2 sentences2017In affirming the judgment after the defendant's demurrer was sustained, the Court of Appeal determined stare decisis required adherence to the rule in Fifield Manor v. Finston (1960) 54 Cal.2d 632 , 7 Cal.Rptr. 377 , 354 P.2d 1073 ( Fifield ). 9 ( Adams, supra, 50 Cal.App.3d at p. 40 , 123 Cal.Rptr. 216 .) Adams described the " Fifield rule" as "an expression of a general doctrine prevailing in American courts which bars recovery for negligent interference with profitable economic relations." ( Adams, supra, 50 Cal.App.3d at p. 40 , 123 Cal.Rptr. 216 , fn. omitted.) Accordingly, the Adams cour 2017In affirming the judgment after the defendant's demurrer was sustained, the Court of Appeal determined stare decisis required adherence to the rule in Fifield Manor v. Finston (1960) 54 Cal.2d 632 , 7 Cal.Rptr. 377 , 354 P.2d 1073 ( Fifield ). 9 ( Adams, supra, 50 Cal.App.3d at p. 40 , 123 Cal.Rptr. 216 .) Adams described the " Fifield rule" as "an expression of a general doctrine prevailing in American courts which bars recovery for negligent interference with profitable economic relations." ( Adams, supra, 50 Cal.App.3d at p. 40 , 123 Cal.Rptr. 216 , fn. omitted.) Accordingly, the Adams cour | 5 | 1975–2017 |
J'Aire Corp. v. Gregory
green
2 sentences2017In affirming the judgment after the defendant's demurrer was sustained, the Court of Appeal determined stare decisis required adherence to the rule in Fifield Manor v. Finston (1960) 54 Cal.2d 632 , 7 Cal.Rptr. 377 , 354 P.2d 1073 ( Fifield ). 9 ( Adams, supra, 50 Cal.App.3d at p. 40 , 123 Cal.Rptr. 216 .) Adams described the " Fifield rule" as "an expression of a general doctrine prevailing in American courts which bars recovery for negligent interference with profitable economic relations." ( Adams, supra, 50 Cal.App.3d at p. 40 , 123 Cal.Rptr. 216 , fn. omitted.) Accordingly, the Adams cour 2017In affirming the judgment after the defendant's demurrer was sustained, the Court of Appeal determined stare decisis required adherence to the rule in Fifield Manor v. Finston (1960) 54 Cal.2d 632 , 7 Cal.Rptr. 377 , 354 P.2d 1073 ( Fifield ). 9 ( Adams, supra, 50 Cal.App.3d at p. 40 , 123 Cal.Rptr. 216 .) Adams described the " Fifield rule" as "an expression of a general doctrine prevailing in American courts which bars recovery for negligent interference with profitable economic relations." ( Adams, supra, 50 Cal.App.3d at p. 40 , 123 Cal.Rptr. 216 , fn. omitted.) Accordingly, the Adams cour | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Dillon v. Legg
green
2 sentences1975The first finds expression in Dillon v. Legg (1968) 68 Cal.2d 728 [ 69 Cal.Rptr. 72 , 441 P.2d 912 , 29 A.L.R.3d 1316 ], and Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108 [ 70 Cal.Rptr. 97 , 443 P.2d 561 , 32 A.L.R.3d 496 ]. 1975The first finds expression in Dillon v. Legg (1968) 68 Cal.2d 728 [ 69 Cal.Rptr. 72 , 441 P.2d 912 , 29 A.L.R.3d 1316 ], and Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108 [ 70 Cal.Rptr. 97 , 443 P.2d 561 , 32 A.L.R.3d 496 ]. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Stevinson v. East Ohio Gas Co.
neutral
2 sentences1975The Ohio court stated: “It is our opinion that the courts generally have reached a wise result in limiting claims for damages in this class of cases to who [57c] may have sustained personal injuries or physical property damage and in refusing to open their doors in such cases to claims of loss of wages and other economic loss based on contract.” (Stevenson v. East Ohio Gas Co., 47 Ohio L.Abs. 586 [ 73 N.E.2d 200 , 204], quoted in Fifield Manor v. Finston, supra, 54 Cal.2d at p. 636 .) The Fifield rule was reiterated in Costello v. Wells Fargo Bank (1968) 258 Cal.App.2d 90, 94-96 [ 65 Cal.Rptr. 1975The Ohio court stated: “It is our opinion that the courts generally have reached a wise result in limiting claims for damages in this class of cases to who [57c] may have sustained personal injuries or physical property damage and in refusing to open their doors in such cases to claims of loss of wages and other economic loss based on contract.” (Stevenson v. East Ohio Gas Co., 47 Ohio L.Abs. 586 [ 73 N.E.2d 200 , 204], quoted in Fifield Manor v. Finston, supra, 54 Cal.2d at p. 636 .) The Fifield rule was reiterated in Costello v. Wells Fargo Bank (1968) 258 Cal.App.2d 90, 94-96 [ 65 Cal.Rptr. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Rowland v. Christian
red
2 sentences1975The first finds expression in Dillon v. Legg (1968) 68 Cal.2d 728 [ 69 Cal.Rptr. 72 , 441 P.2d 912 , 29 A.L.R.3d 1316 ], and Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108 [ 70 Cal.Rptr. 97 , 443 P.2d 561 , 32 A.L.R.3d 496 ]. 1975The first finds expression in Dillon v. Legg (1968) 68 Cal.2d 728 [ 69 Cal.Rptr. 72 , 441 P.2d 912 , 29 A.L.R.3d 1316 ], and Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108 [ 70 Cal.Rptr. 97 , 443 P.2d 561 , 32 A.L.R.3d 496 ]. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Brick v. Keim
green
2 sentences1975As an intermediate appellate court, we must decide the liability issue in conformity with the state Supreme Court's last utterance in point. ( Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455 [ 25 Cal. Rptr. 321 , 369 P.2d 937 ]; 6 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (2d ed. 1971) Appeal, §§ 656, 664.) Plaintiffs argue that Fifield and its companion decisions are not in point. 1975As an intermediate appellate court, we must decide the liability issue in conformity with the state Supreme Court's last utterance in point. ( Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455 [ 25 Cal. Rptr. 321 , 369 P.2d 937 ]; 6 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (2d ed. 1971) Appeal, §§ 656, 664.) Plaintiffs argue that Fifield and its companion decisions are not in point. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
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.