longer rule (California) · Go Syfert
← California issues

longer rule in California

6 California opinions name it 3 courts 1938–2005 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.

Followed or applied (1)

CaseFollowedCited
County Commissioners v. United Railways, Etc., Co.green
md · 1904 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1938–1938
2 sentences

1938Rep. 183 ] ; Wolcott v. Wolcott, 32 Wis. 63 ; Rupp v. Swineford, 40 Wis. 28 ; Whitaker v. Reynolds, 77 Ky. (14 Bush.) 616; Peters v. Banta, 120 Ind. 416 [ 22 N. E. 95 , 23 N. E. 84 ]; Krutz v. Howard, 70 Ind. 174 ; Hutts v. Hutts, 62 Ind. 240 ; Baltimore County Commrs. v. United Railways Co., 99 Md. 82, 87 [ 57 Atl. 675 ]; State v. Gore, 32 Md. 498 ; Cooke v. Cooke, 41 Md. *423 362, 366; Taxicab Co. of Baltimore v. Emanuel, 125 Md. 246 [ 93 Atl. 807 ].) In the state of Indiana, however, this is no longer the rule, the earlier eases cited from that state having been expressly repudiated in the

1938Rep. 183 ] ; Wolcott v. Wolcott, 32 Wis. 63 ; Rupp v. Swineford, 40 Wis. 28 ; Whitaker v. Reynolds, 77 Ky. (14 Bush.) 616; Peters v. Banta, 120 Ind. 416 [ 22 N. E. 95 , 23 N. E. 84 ]; Krutz v. Howard, 70 Ind. 174 ; Hutts v. Hutts, 62 Ind. 240 ; Baltimore County Commrs. v. United Railways Co., 99 Md. 82, 87 [ 57 Atl. 675 ]; State v. Gore, 32 Md. 498 ; Cooke v. Cooke, 41 Md. *423 362, 366; Taxicab Co. of Baltimore v. Emanuel, 125 Md. 246 [ 93 Atl. 807 ].) In the state of Indiana, however, this is no longer the rule, the earlier eases cited from that state having been expressly repudiated in the

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (14)

CaseCitedYears
Roth v. Insley green
cal · 1890
2 sentences

1958This is no longer the rule, under Roth v. Insley, supra (1890), 86 Cal. 134 , citing Civ.

1958This is no longer the rule, under Roth v. Insley, supra (1890), 86 Cal. 134 , citing Civ.

21958–1958
Hovey v. Superior Court red
cal · 1980
2 sentences

2005(See Hovey v. Superior Court (1980) 28 Cal.3d 1 [ 168 Cal.Rptr. 128 , 616 P.2d 1301 ].) Defendant’s claim the prosecutor engaged in only cursory questioning of Jurors R.H. and BJ. is thus not supported by the record.

2005(See Hovey v. Superior Court (1980) 28 Cal.3d 1 [ 168 Cal.Rptr. 128 , 616 P.2d 1301 ].) Defendant’s claim the prosecutor engaged in only cursory questioning of Jurors R.H. and BJ. is thus not supported by the record.

12005–2005
Plotitsa v. Superior Court green
calctapp · 1983
1 sentence

1986The statement required under section 425.11 gives a defendant in a personal injury action or a wrongful death action notice of the special damages sought, which was the reason for the rule that special damages must be pleaded in a personal injury complaint. ([Plotitsa v. Superior Court, supra, 140 Cal.App.3d 755, 762 .) When a statement is required under section 425.11, the plaintiff must notify the defendant of “the nature and amount of damages being sought, the plaintiff shall give notice to the defendant of the amount of special and general damages sought to be recovered . . . .” (Italics a

11986–1986
Klein v. Klein green
cal · 1962
2 sentences

1963Besides, interspousal immunity was common law rule and the majority rule when the original Restatement was written, as it was the rule in California, but this is no longer the rule in this state (Self v. Self, 58 Cal.2d 683 [ 26 Cal.Rptr. 97 , 376 P.2d 65 ]; Klein v. Klein, 58 Cal.2d 692 [ 26 Cal.Rptr. 102 , 376 P.2d 70 ] [decisions subsequent to the judgment which was rendered in the case before us]), or in many others (cases collected in 43 A.L.R.2d 632 ).

1963Besides, interspousal immunity was common law rule and the majority rule when the original Restatement was written, as it was the rule in California, but this is no longer the rule in this state (Self v. Self, 58 Cal.2d 683 [ 26 Cal.Rptr. 97 , 376 P.2d 65 ]; Klein v. Klein, 58 Cal.2d 692 [ 26 Cal.Rptr. 102 , 376 P.2d 70 ] [decisions subsequent to the judgment which was rendered in the case before us]), or in many others (cases collected in 43 A.L.R.2d 632 ).

11963–1963
Self v. Self green
cal · 1962
2 sentences

1963Besides, interspousal immunity was common law rule and the majority rule when the original Restatement was written, as it was the rule in California, but this is no longer the rule in this state (Self v. Self, 58 Cal.2d 683 [ 26 Cal.Rptr. 97 , 376 P.2d 65 ]; Klein v. Klein, 58 Cal.2d 692 [ 26 Cal.Rptr. 102 , 376 P.2d 70 ] [decisions subsequent to the judgment which was rendered in the case before us]), or in many others (cases collected in 43 A.L.R.2d 632 ).

1963Besides, interspousal immunity was common law rule and the majority rule when the original Restatement was written, as it was the rule in California, but this is no longer the rule in this state (Self v. Self, 58 Cal.2d 683 [ 26 Cal.Rptr. 97 , 376 P.2d 65 ]; Klein v. Klein, 58 Cal.2d 692 [ 26 Cal.Rptr. 102 , 376 P.2d 70 ] [decisions subsequent to the judgment which was rendered in the case before us]), or in many others (cases collected in 43 A.L.R.2d 632 ).

11963–1963
State ex rel. County Commissioners v. Gore neutral
md · 1870
1 sentence

1938Rep. 183 ] ; Wolcott v. Wolcott, 32 Wis. 63 ; Rupp v. Swineford, 40 Wis. 28 ; Whitaker v. Reynolds, 77 Ky. (14 Bush.) 616; Peters v. Banta, 120 Ind. 416 [ 22 N. E. 95 , 23 N. E. 84 ]; Krutz v. Howard, 70 Ind. 174 ; Hutts v. Hutts, 62 Ind. 240 ; Baltimore County Commrs. v. United Railways Co., 99 Md. 82, 87 [ 57 Atl. 675 ]; State v. Gore, 32 Md. 498 ; Cooke v. Cooke, 41 Md. *423 362, 366; Taxicab Co. of Baltimore v. Emanuel, 125 Md. 246 [ 93 Atl. 807 ].) In the state of Indiana, however, this is no longer the rule, the earlier eases cited from that state having been expressly repudiated in the

11938–1938
Taxicab Co. of Balto. v. Emanuel green
md · 1915
2 sentences

1938Rep. 183 ] ; Wolcott v. Wolcott, 32 Wis. 63 ; Rupp v. Swineford, 40 Wis. 28 ; Whitaker v. Reynolds, 77 Ky. (14 Bush.) 616; Peters v. Banta, 120 Ind. 416 [ 22 N. E. 95 , 23 N. E. 84 ]; Krutz v. Howard, 70 Ind. 174 ; Hutts v. Hutts, 62 Ind. 240 ; Baltimore County Commrs. v. United Railways Co., 99 Md. 82, 87 [ 57 Atl. 675 ]; State v. Gore, 32 Md. 498 ; Cooke v. Cooke, 41 Md. *423 362, 366; Taxicab Co. of Baltimore v. Emanuel, 125 Md. 246 [ 93 Atl. 807 ].) In the state of Indiana, however, this is no longer the rule, the earlier eases cited from that state having been expressly repudiated in the

1938Rep. 183 ] ; Wolcott v. Wolcott, 32 Wis. 63 ; Rupp v. Swineford, 40 Wis. 28 ; Whitaker v. Reynolds, 77 Ky. (14 Bush.) 616; Peters v. Banta, 120 Ind. 416 [ 22 N. E. 95 , 23 N. E. 84 ]; Krutz v. Howard, 70 Ind. 174 ; Hutts v. Hutts, 62 Ind. 240 ; Baltimore County Commrs. v. United Railways Co., 99 Md. 82, 87 [ 57 Atl. 675 ]; State v. Gore, 32 Md. 498 ; Cooke v. Cooke, 41 Md. *423 362, 366; Taxicab Co. of Baltimore v. Emanuel, 125 Md. 246 [ 93 Atl. 807 ].) In the state of Indiana, however, this is no longer the rule, the earlier eases cited from that state having been expressly repudiated in the

11938–1938
Hutts v. Hutts neutral
ind · 1878
1 sentence

1938Rep. 183 ] ; Wolcott v. Wolcott, 32 Wis. 63 ; Rupp v. Swineford, 40 Wis. 28 ; Whitaker v. Reynolds, 77 Ky. (14 Bush.) 616; Peters v. Banta, 120 Ind. 416 [ 22 N. E. 95 , 23 N. E. 84 ]; Krutz v. Howard, 70 Ind. 174 ; Hutts v. Hutts, 62 Ind. 240 ; Baltimore County Commrs. v. United Railways Co., 99 Md. 82, 87 [ 57 Atl. 675 ]; State v. Gore, 32 Md. 498 ; Cooke v. Cooke, 41 Md. *423 362, 366; Taxicab Co. of Baltimore v. Emanuel, 125 Md. 246 [ 93 Atl. 807 ].) In the state of Indiana, however, this is no longer the rule, the earlier eases cited from that state having been expressly repudiated in the

11938–1938
Krutz v. Howard green
ind · 1880
1 sentence

1938Rep. 183 ] ; Wolcott v. Wolcott, 32 Wis. 63 ; Rupp v. Swineford, 40 Wis. 28 ; Whitaker v. Reynolds, 77 Ky. (14 Bush.) 616; Peters v. Banta, 120 Ind. 416 [ 22 N. E. 95 , 23 N. E. 84 ]; Krutz v. Howard, 70 Ind. 174 ; Hutts v. Hutts, 62 Ind. 240 ; Baltimore County Commrs. v. United Railways Co., 99 Md. 82, 87 [ 57 Atl. 675 ]; State v. Gore, 32 Md. 498 ; Cooke v. Cooke, 41 Md. *423 362, 366; Taxicab Co. of Baltimore v. Emanuel, 125 Md. 246 [ 93 Atl. 807 ].) In the state of Indiana, however, this is no longer the rule, the earlier eases cited from that state having been expressly repudiated in the

11938–1938
Miller v. Burton neutral
ind · 1889
1 sentence

1938Rep. 183 ] ; Wolcott v. Wolcott, 32 Wis. 63 ; Rupp v. Swineford, 40 Wis. 28 ; Whitaker v. Reynolds, 77 Ky. (14 Bush.) 616; Peters v. Banta, 120 Ind. 416 [ 22 N. E. 95 , 23 N. E. 84 ]; Krutz v. Howard, 70 Ind. 174 ; Hutts v. Hutts, 62 Ind. 240 ; Baltimore County Commrs. v. United Railways Co., 99 Md. 82, 87 [ 57 Atl. 675 ]; State v. Gore, 32 Md. 498 ; Cooke v. Cooke, 41 Md. *423 362, 366; Taxicab Co. of Baltimore v. Emanuel, 125 Md. 246 [ 93 Atl. 807 ].) In the state of Indiana, however, this is no longer the rule, the earlier eases cited from that state having been expressly repudiated in the

11938–1938
Peters v. Banta neutral
ind · 1889
2 sentences

1938Rep. 183 ] ; Wolcott v. Wolcott, 32 Wis. 63 ; Rupp v. Swineford, 40 Wis. 28 ; Whitaker v. Reynolds, 77 Ky. (14 Bush.) 616; Peters v. Banta, 120 Ind. 416 [ 22 N. E. 95 , 23 N. E. 84 ]; Krutz v. Howard, 70 Ind. 174 ; Hutts v. Hutts, 62 Ind. 240 ; Baltimore County Commrs. v. United Railways Co., 99 Md. 82, 87 [ 57 Atl. 675 ]; State v. Gore, 32 Md. 498 ; Cooke v. Cooke, 41 Md. *423 362, 366; Taxicab Co. of Baltimore v. Emanuel, 125 Md. 246 [ 93 Atl. 807 ].) In the state of Indiana, however, this is no longer the rule, the earlier eases cited from that state having been expressly repudiated in the

1938Rep. 183 ] ; Wolcott v. Wolcott, 32 Wis. 63 ; Rupp v. Swineford, 40 Wis. 28 ; Whitaker v. Reynolds, 77 Ky. (14 Bush.) 616; Peters v. Banta, 120 Ind. 416 [ 22 N. E. 95 , 23 N. E. 84 ]; Krutz v. Howard, 70 Ind. 174 ; Hutts v. Hutts, 62 Ind. 240 ; Baltimore County Commrs. v. United Railways Co., 99 Md. 82, 87 [ 57 Atl. 675 ]; State v. Gore, 32 Md. 498 ; Cooke v. Cooke, 41 Md. *423 362, 366; Taxicab Co. of Baltimore v. Emanuel, 125 Md. 246 [ 93 Atl. 807 ].) In the state of Indiana, however, this is no longer the rule, the earlier eases cited from that state having been expressly repudiated in the

11938–1938
Dill v. Fraze green
ind · 1907
2 sentences

1938Rep. 183 ] ; Wolcott v. Wolcott, 32 Wis. 63 ; Rupp v. Swineford, 40 Wis. 28 ; Whitaker v. Reynolds, 77 Ky. (14 Bush.) 616; Peters v. Banta, 120 Ind. 416 [ 22 N. E. 95 , 23 N. E. 84 ]; Krutz v. Howard, 70 Ind. 174 ; Hutts v. Hutts, 62 Ind. 240 ; Baltimore County Commrs. v. United Railways Co., 99 Md. 82, 87 [ 57 Atl. 675 ]; State v. Gore, 32 Md. 498 ; Cooke v. Cooke, 41 Md. *423 362, 366; Taxicab Co. of Baltimore v. Emanuel, 125 Md. 246 [ 93 Atl. 807 ].) In the state of Indiana, however, this is no longer the rule, the earlier eases cited from that state having been expressly repudiated in the

1938Rep. 183 ] ; Wolcott v. Wolcott, 32 Wis. 63 ; Rupp v. Swineford, 40 Wis. 28 ; Whitaker v. Reynolds, 77 Ky. (14 Bush.) 616; Peters v. Banta, 120 Ind. 416 [ 22 N. E. 95 , 23 N. E. 84 ]; Krutz v. Howard, 70 Ind. 174 ; Hutts v. Hutts, 62 Ind. 240 ; Baltimore County Commrs. v. United Railways Co., 99 Md. 82, 87 [ 57 Atl. 675 ]; State v. Gore, 32 Md. 498 ; Cooke v. Cooke, 41 Md. *423 362, 366; Taxicab Co. of Baltimore v. Emanuel, 125 Md. 246 [ 93 Atl. 807 ].) In the state of Indiana, however, this is no longer the rule, the earlier eases cited from that state having been expressly repudiated in the

11938–1938
Wolcott v. Wolcott neutral
wis · 1873
1 sentence

1938Rep. 183 ] ; Wolcott v. Wolcott, 32 Wis. 63 ; Rupp v. Swineford, 40 Wis. 28 ; Whitaker v. Reynolds, 77 Ky. (14 Bush.) 616; Peters v. Banta, 120 Ind. 416 [ 22 N. E. 95 , 23 N. E. 84 ]; Krutz v. Howard, 70 Ind. 174 ; Hutts v. Hutts, 62 Ind. 240 ; Baltimore County Commrs. v. United Railways Co., 99 Md. 82, 87 [ 57 Atl. 675 ]; State v. Gore, 32 Md. 498 ; Cooke v. Cooke, 41 Md. *423 362, 366; Taxicab Co. of Baltimore v. Emanuel, 125 Md. 246 [ 93 Atl. 807 ].) In the state of Indiana, however, this is no longer the rule, the earlier eases cited from that state having been expressly repudiated in the

11938–1938
Rupp v. Swineford green
wis · 1876
1 sentence

1938Rep. 183 ] ; Wolcott v. Wolcott, 32 Wis. 63 ; Rupp v. Swineford, 40 Wis. 28 ; Whitaker v. Reynolds, 77 Ky. (14 Bush.) 616; Peters v. Banta, 120 Ind. 416 [ 22 N. E. 95 , 23 N. E. 84 ]; Krutz v. Howard, 70 Ind. 174 ; Hutts v. Hutts, 62 Ind. 240 ; Baltimore County Commrs. v. United Railways Co., 99 Md. 82, 87 [ 57 Atl. 675 ]; State v. Gore, 32 Md. 498 ; Cooke v. Cooke, 41 Md. *423 362, 366; Taxicab Co. of Baltimore v. Emanuel, 125 Md. 246 [ 93 Atl. 807 ].) In the state of Indiana, however, this is no longer the rule, the earlier eases cited from that state having been expressly repudiated in the

11938–1938

Where else courts name it

AL 16 (1986–2011) WA 16 (1964–2025) CA 6 (1938–2005) TX 5 (1983–2003) FL 5 (1957–2010) NY 2 (1988–2024) MD 2 (1961–1970) DC 2 (2009–2016) MI 2 (2016–2021) OK 2 (1932–1957) SD 2 (1977–1985)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check