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 1959–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Perez v. City of Huntington Parkgreen2 sentences2013(See Perez v. City of Huntington Park (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 817, 820-821 [ 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 258 ]; Sen. 2013(See Perez v. City of Huntington Park (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 817, 820-821 [ 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 258 ]; Sen. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Slopergreen2 sentences1959It is an impracticable rule.” The M’Naughton rule continued to be accepted in California, over arguments that it was unscientific (e.g., People v. Sloper (1926), 198 Cal. 238, 245-246 [1-3] [ 244 P. 362 ]), at the time the Legislature in 1927 (Pen. 1959It is an impracticable rule.” The M’Naughton rule continued to be accepted in California, over arguments that it was unscientific (e.g., People v. Sloper (1926), 198 Cal. 238, 245-246 [1-3] [ 244 P. 362 ]), at the time the Legislature in 1927 (Pen. | 2 | 2 |
Roe v. Hesperia Unified School Dist.green1 sentence2023(Ibid.) The Supreme Court explained that “Lopez does not stand for the proposition that a plaintiff must specifically plead, before undertaking 11 discovery, the identity of a government employee whose alleged negligence is made the basis for vicarious liability under section 815.2, and we doubt such an impracticable rule would be consistent with the legislative intent in enacting that statute.” (C.A., supra, 53 Cal.4th at p. 872 ; see also Roe v. Hesperia Unified School Dist. (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 13 .) The court quoted legislative commentary that explained that under Government Code section | 1 | 1 |
Lopez v. Southern California Rapid Transit Districtgreen1 sentence2023(Ibid.) The Supreme Court explained that “Lopez does not stand for the proposition that a plaintiff must specifically plead, before undertaking 11 discovery, the identity of a government employee whose alleged negligence is made the basis for vicarious liability under section 815.2, and we doubt such an impracticable rule would be consistent with the legislative intent in enacting that statute.” (C.A., supra, 53 Cal.4th at p. 872 ; see also Roe v. Hesperia Unified School Dist. (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 13 .) The court quoted legislative commentary that explained that under Government Code section | 1 | 1 |
People v. Davisgreen2 sentences1959Code, 1016, 1017, 1020, 1026; Stats. 1927, ch. 677) provided for the specific plea and separate trial of the issue of not guilty by reason of insanity. *47 [2] The 1927 legislation upon its face effected only procedural changes (People v. Hickman (1928), 204 Cal. 470, 474-480 [1-10] [ 268 P. 909 , 270 P. 1117 ]; People v. Davis (1928), 94 Cal.App. 192, 194-197 [1] [ 270 P. 715 ]; People v. Troche (1928), 206 Cal. 35, 42-45 [1-5], 48-49 [11- 12] [ 273 P. 767 ]; People v. Leong Fook (1928), 206 Cal. 64, 70 [1], 74-76 [4-5] [ 273 P. 779 ]) but it is apparent that the Legislature had in mind the s 1959Code, 1016, 1017, 1020, 1026; Stats. 1927, ch. 677) provided for the specific plea and separate trial of the issue of not guilty by reason of insanity. *47 [2] The 1927 legislation upon its face effected only procedural changes (People v. Hickman (1928), 204 Cal. 470, 474-480 [1-10] [ 268 P. 909 , 270 P. 1117 ]; People v. Davis (1928), 94 Cal.App. 192, 194-197 [1] [ 270 P. 715 ]; People v. Troche (1928), 206 Cal. 35, 42-45 [1-5], 48-49 [11- 12] [ 273 P. 767 ]; People v. Leong Fook (1928), 206 Cal. 64, 70 [1], 74-76 [4-5] [ 273 P. 779 ]) but it is apparent that the Legislature had in mind the s | 1 | 1 |
People v. Leong Fookgreen2 sentences1959Code, 1016, 1017, 1020, 1026; Stats. 1927, ch. 677) provided for the specific plea and separate trial of the issue of not guilty by reason of insanity. *47 [2] The 1927 legislation upon its face effected only procedural changes (People v. Hickman (1928), 204 Cal. 470, 474-480 [1-10] [ 268 P. 909 , 270 P. 1117 ]; People v. Davis (1928), 94 Cal.App. 192, 194-197 [1] [ 270 P. 715 ]; People v. Troche (1928), 206 Cal. 35, 42-45 [1-5], 48-49 [11- 12] [ 273 P. 767 ]; People v. Leong Fook (1928), 206 Cal. 64, 70 [1], 74-76 [4-5] [ 273 P. 779 ]) but it is apparent that the Legislature had in mind the s 1959Code, 1016, 1017, 1020, 1026; Stats. 1927, ch. 677) provided for the specific plea and separate trial of the issue of not guilty by reason of insanity. *47 [2] The 1927 legislation upon its face effected only procedural changes (People v. Hickman (1928), 204 Cal. 470, 474-480 [1-10] [ 268 P. 909 , 270 P. 1117 ]; People v. Davis (1928), 94 Cal.App. 192, 194-197 [1] [ 270 P. 715 ]; People v. Troche (1928), 206 Cal. 35, 42-45 [1-5], 48-49 [11- 12] [ 273 P. 767 ]; People v. Leong Fook (1928), 206 Cal. 64, 70 [1], 74-76 [4-5] [ 273 P. 779 ]) but it is apparent that the Legislature had in mind the s | 1 | 1 |
People v. Trocheyellow2 sentences1959Code, 1016, 1017, 1020, 1026; Stats. 1927, ch. 677) provided for the specific plea and separate trial of the issue of not guilty by reason of insanity. *47 [2] The 1927 legislation upon its face effected only procedural changes (People v. Hickman (1928), 204 Cal. 470, 474-480 [1-10] [ 268 P. 909 , 270 P. 1117 ]; People v. Davis (1928), 94 Cal.App. 192, 194-197 [1] [ 270 P. 715 ]; People v. Troche (1928), 206 Cal. 35, 42-45 [1-5], 48-49 [11- 12] [ 273 P. 767 ]; People v. Leong Fook (1928), 206 Cal. 64, 70 [1], 74-76 [4-5] [ 273 P. 779 ]) but it is apparent that the Legislature had in mind the s 1959Code, 1016, 1017, 1020, 1026; Stats. 1927, ch. 677) provided for the specific plea and separate trial of the issue of not guilty by reason of insanity. *47 [2] The 1927 legislation upon its face effected only procedural changes (People v. Hickman (1928), 204 Cal. 470, 474-480 [1-10] [ 268 P. 909 , 270 P. 1117 ]; People v. Davis (1928), 94 Cal.App. 192, 194-197 [1] [ 270 P. 715 ]; People v. Troche (1928), 206 Cal. 35, 42-45 [1-5], 48-49 [11- 12] [ 273 P. 767 ]; People v. Leong Fook (1928), 206 Cal. 64, 70 [1], 74-76 [4-5] [ 273 P. 779 ]) but it is apparent that the Legislature had in mind the s | 1 | 1 |
People v. Hickmangreen2 sentences1959Code, 1016, 1017, 1020, 1026; Stats. 1927, ch. 677) provided for the specific plea and separate trial of the issue of not guilty by reason of insanity. *47 [2] The 1927 legislation upon its face effected only procedural changes (People v. Hickman (1928), 204 Cal. 470, 474-480 [1-10] [ 268 P. 909 , 270 P. 1117 ]; People v. Davis (1928), 94 Cal.App. 192, 194-197 [1] [ 270 P. 715 ]; People v. Troche (1928), 206 Cal. 35, 42-45 [1-5], 48-49 [11- 12] [ 273 P. 767 ]; People v. Leong Fook (1928), 206 Cal. 64, 70 [1], 74-76 [4-5] [ 273 P. 779 ]) but it is apparent that the Legislature had in mind the s 1959Code, 1016, 1017, 1020, 1026; Stats. 1927, ch. 677) provided for the specific plea and separate trial of the issue of not guilty by reason of insanity. *47 [2] The 1927 legislation upon its face effected only procedural changes (People v. Hickman (1928), 204 Cal. 470, 474-480 [1-10] [ 268 P. 909 , 270 P. 1117 ]; People v. Davis (1928), 94 Cal.App. 192, 194-197 [1] [ 270 P. 715 ]; People v. Troche (1928), 206 Cal. 35, 42-45 [1-5], 48-49 [11- 12] [ 273 P. 767 ]; People v. Leong Fook (1928), 206 Cal. 64, 70 [1], 74-76 [4-5] [ 273 P. 779 ]) but it is apparent that the Legislature had in mind the s | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School District
green
1 sentence2023(Ibid.) The Supreme Court explained that “Lopez does not stand for the proposition that a plaintiff must specifically plead, before undertaking 11 discovery, the identity of a government employee whose alleged negligence is made the basis for vicarious liability under section 815.2, and we doubt such an impracticable rule would be consistent with the legislative intent in enacting that statute.” (C.A., supra, 53 Cal.4th at p. 872 ; see also Roe v. Hesperia Unified School Dist. (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 13 .) The court quoted legislative commentary that explained that under Government Code section | 1 | 2023–2023 |
James v. Marinship Corp.
green
2 sentences2000Far from having identified a practice "against which the law has definitely set its face" ( Marinship, supra, 25 Cal.2d at p. 734 , 155 P.2d 329 ), the majority condemns today what the Legislature is as likely as not to approve tomorrow. 2000Far from having identified a practice “against which the law has definitely set its face” (Marinship, supra, 25 Cal.2d at p. 734 ), the majority condemns today what the Legislature is as likely as not to approve tomorrow. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.