6 California opinions name it 2 courts 1908–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Delaney v. Bakergreen2 sentences2025Although there are sufficient facts stating that Casitas Care Center had a caretaking or custodial relationship with James (see Delaney, supra, 20 Cal.4th at p. 34 [a nursing home “perform[s] custodial functions and provide[s] professional 15 In light of our conclusion, we have no occasion to reach the parties’ further arguments regarding whether plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to state the recklessness element of the neglect claim under the Act. 12 medical care”]), the allegations establish that Dr. Etehad’s relationship with James was episodic and limited. 2025Although there are sufficient facts stating that Casitas Care Center had a caretaking or custodial relationship with James (see Delaney, supra, 20 Cal.4th at p. 34 [a nursing home “perform[s] custodial functions and provide[s] professional 15 In light of our conclusion, we have no occasion to reach the parties’ further arguments regarding whether plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to state the recklessness element of the neglect claim under the Act. 12 medical care”]), the allegations establish that Dr. Etehad’s relationship with James was episodic and limited. | 1 | 1 |
Alexander v. Scripps Mem'l Hosp. La Jollagreen1 sentence2025(See Alexander, supra, 23 Cal.App.5th at p. 223 [“[d]isagreements . . . about the type of care being provided [do] not give rise to an elder abuse cause of action”].) Our conclusion is consistent with precedent. | 1 | 1 |
Miles California Co. v. Hawkinsgreen2 sentences1990(Miles California Co. v. Hawkins (1959) 175 Cal.App.2d 162, 165 [ 345 P.2d 492 ].) The statutory right to costs is not lost by virtue of the court’s neglect or error. 1990(Miles California Co. v. Hawkins (1959) 175 Cal.App.2d 162, 165 [ 345 P.2d 492 ].) The statutory right to costs is not lost by virtue of the court’s neglect or error. | 1 | 1 |
Lundberg v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Boardgreen2 sentences1970App. Bd. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 436, 440-441 [ 71 Cal.Rptr. 684 , 445 P.2d 300 ], Indeed, the instant case symbolizes the vice of the neglect of the rule: in reading the narrative account of applicant’s work history one cannot authoritatively tell whether the board did or did not give any consideration to the evidence of subsequent earnings. 1970App. Bd. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 436, 440-441 [ 71 Cal.Rptr. 684 , 445 P.2d 300 ], Indeed, the instant case symbolizes the vice of the neglect of the rule: in reading the narrative account of applicant’s work history one cannot authoritatively tell whether the board did or did not give any consideration to the evidence of subsequent earnings. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Goytia v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board
green
2 sentences1985App. Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 889 [ 83 Cal.Rptr. 591 , 464 P.2d 47 ], “the instant case symbolizes the vice of the neglect of the rule: in reading the narrative account of applicant’s work history one cannot authoritatively tell whether the board did or did not give any consideration to the evidence of subsequent earnings. 1985App. Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 889 [ 83 Cal.Rptr. 591 , 464 P.2d 47 ], “the instant case symbolizes the vice of the neglect of the rule: in reading the narrative account of applicant’s work history one cannot authoritatively tell whether the board did or did not give any consideration to the evidence of subsequent earnings. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Bresnahan v. Michigan Central Railroad
neutral
1 sentence1933They made him conversant with the locality, the character and frequency of trains, the necessity for incessant vigilance to avoid injury, and the fact that no one could venture upon the tracks and escape injury without the greatest circumspection. ’ (Bresnahan v. Railroad Co., 49 Mich. 413 [ 13 N. W. 797 ].) The law demands that one who is working in a place where he is exposed to danger shall himself exercise his faculties for his own protection, and does not permit a recovery for damages resulting from a neglect of this rule.” The court there held plaintiff negligent as a matter of law. | 1 | 1933–1933 |
Kenna v. Cent. Pac. R.R. Co.
neutral
2 sentences1908R., 101 Cal. 26 , [ 35 Pac. 332 ].) In Davis v. California Street Cable Co., 105 Cal. 131 , [ 38 Pac. 647 ], defendant had placed an iron Tail to be used in the construction of its street-railway track In front of the house in which plaintiff lived. 1908R., 101 Cal. 26 , [ 35 Pac. 332 ].) In Davis v. California Street Cable Co., 105 Cal. 131 , [ 38 Pac. 647 ], defendant had placed an iron Tail to be used in the construction of its street-railway track In front of the house in which plaintiff lived. | 1 | 1908–1908 |
Davis v. California Street Cable Railroad
neutral
2 sentences1908R., 101 Cal. 26 , [ 35 Pac. 332 ].) In Davis v. California Street Cable Co., 105 Cal. 131 , [ 38 Pac. 647 ], defendant had placed an iron Tail to be used in the construction of its street-railway track In front of the house in which plaintiff lived. 1908R., 101 Cal. 26 , [ 35 Pac. 332 ].) In Davis v. California Street Cable Co., 105 Cal. 131 , [ 38 Pac. 647 ], defendant had placed an iron Tail to be used in the construction of its street-railway track In front of the house in which plaintiff lived. | 1 | 1908–1908 |
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.