6 California opinions name it 2 courts 1904–1999 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 |
|---|---|---|
Brown v. Bleiberggreen2 sentences1999(See, e.g., Brown v. Bleiberg (1982) 32 Cal.3d 426, 432 [ 186 Cal.Rptr. 228 , 651 P.2d 815 ].) Whether any assumed operation of the discovery rule should similarly be limited for a cause of action for wrongful death generally is a question we need not, and do not, answer. 1999(See, e.g., Brown v. Bleiberg (1982) 32 Cal.3d 426, 432 [ 186 Cal.Rptr. 228 , 651 P.2d 815 ].) Whether any assumed operation of the discovery rule should similarly be limited for a cause of action for wrongful death generally is a question we need not, and do not, answer. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Gueringreen2 sentences1973Code, § 211.) Robbery is a compound felony which includes all the elements of both theft and assault (People v. Guerin, 22 Cal.App.3d 775, 781 [ 99 Cal.Rptr. 573 ].) The People seek to distinguish this case from the operation of the general rule prohibiting conviction for both the greater and lesser offense and to justify defendants’ convictions of both robbery and theft on the basis of the particular kind of property taken. 1973Code, § 211.) Robbery is a compound felony which includes all the elements of both theft and assault (People v. Guerin, 22 Cal.App.3d 775, 781 [ 99 Cal.Rptr. 573 ].) The People seek to distinguish this case from the operation of the general rule prohibiting conviction for both the greater and lesser offense and to justify defendants’ convictions of both robbery and theft on the basis of the particular kind of property taken. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Tatterson v. Kehrlein
green
2 sentences1933It is no longer questioned that the general rule stated in Tatterson v. Kehrlein, 88 Cal. App. 34 [ 263 Pac. 285 ], wherein the plaintiffs recovered damages, applies to a case such as is here presented. 1933It is no longer questioned that the general rule stated in Tatterson v. Kehrlein, 88 Cal. App. 34 [ 263 Pac. 285 ], wherein the plaintiffs recovered damages, applies to a case such as is here presented. | 1 | 1933–1933 |
Spring Street Co. v. City of Los Angeles
green
1 sentence1929A. 1918E, 197, 148 Pac. 217 ].) None of the grounds of attack which would remove this cause from the operation of the general rule may here rightfully be interposed. | 1 | 1929–1929 |
Webber v. . Piper
neutral
1 sentence1904The differences that we find in the reported cases are upon the question as to whether the facts of a particular case bring it *310 within the operation of the general rule or the qualification thereof, for, as said in Webber v. Piper, 109 N. Y. 496 , the line of division is difficult to define by any general description. | 1 | 1904–1904 |
Murray v. Murray
green
1 sentence1904Murray v. Murray, 115 Cal. 266 , 2 was also by its peculiar facts taken out of the operation of the general rule. | 1 | 1904–1904 |
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.