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 1913–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Naegele v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.green1 sentence2004(Myers, supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 832; Naegele, supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 860.) In Myers , the court held: “The Immunity Statute applies to certain statutorily described conduct of tobacco companies that occurred during the 10-year immunity period, which began on January 1, 1988, and ended on December 31, 1997. | 1 | 1 |
Andrus v. Municipal Courtgreen1 sentence1988Indeed, such reform was "necessary," the Act declared, "to avoid catastrophic economic consequences for state and local governmental bodies as well as private individuals and businesses." (Italics added.) If this was not language evocative of "the logic of retroactive application" ( Andrus v. Municipal Court, supra, 143 Cal. App.3d at p. 1046), then nothing is. *1235 To deny retroactive application to the Act would infer an intent to postpone the repeal of a rule which its drafters expressly condemned as inequitable and unjust. | 1 | 1 |
Southern Service Co. v. County of Los Angelesgreen2 sentences1985Thus, by relying on her common law cause of action, Fosgate could avoid a judgment on the pleadings regardless of whether the repeal rule in Southern Service Co. v. Los Angeles (1940) 15 Cal.2d 1, 11 [ 97 P.2d 963 ] and Governing Board v. Mann (1977) 18 Cal.3d 819, 829 [ 135 Cal.Rptr. 526 , 558 P.2d 1 ] applied. 1985Thus, by relying on her common law cause of action, Fosgate could avoid a judgment on the pleadings regardless of whether the repeal rule in Southern Service Co. v. Los Angeles (1940) 15 Cal.2d 1, 11 [ 97 P.2d 963 ] and Governing Board v. Mann (1977) 18 Cal.3d 819, 829 [ 135 Cal.Rptr. 526 , 558 P.2d 1 ] applied. | 1 | 1 |
Governing Board of Rialto Unified School District v. Manngreen2 sentences1985Thus, by relying on her common law cause of action, Fosgate could avoid a judgment on the pleadings regardless of whether the repeal rule in Southern Service Co. v. Los Angeles (1940) 15 Cal.2d 1, 11 [ 97 P.2d 963 ] and Governing Board v. Mann (1977) 18 Cal.3d 819, 829 [ 135 Cal.Rptr. 526 , 558 P.2d 1 ] applied. 1985Thus, by relying on her common law cause of action, Fosgate could avoid a judgment on the pleadings regardless of whether the repeal rule in Southern Service Co. v. Los Angeles (1940) 15 Cal.2d 1, 11 [ 97 P.2d 963 ] and Governing Board v. Mann (1977) 18 Cal.3d 819, 829 [ 135 Cal.Rptr. 526 , 558 P.2d 1 ] applied. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Standish
green
1 sentence2022(Standish, supra, 38 Cal.4th at p. 877 .) Because the repeal clause would eliminate the constitutional right to bail enshrined in section 12, then by necessity section 28(e) had to articulate its own constitutional parameters for the availability of bail. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Mouse v. Central Savings & Trust Co.
green
2 sentences1963The issue of whether a plaintiff’s suffering which occurs incident to an arrest constitutes actual damage under the uniform law has been expressly decided in Mouse v. Central Savings & Trust Co. (1929) 120 Ohio St. 599 [ 167 N.E. 868 ]. 13 In that case the court stated that: “ [W]hen the Legislature enacted this section, it did not intend to deprive a depositor of the right of action in case of the nonpayment of his check through error or mistake, and without malice, but intended merely to eliminate speculative and punitive damages in the absence of malice on the part of the depositary. ‘Actua 1963The issue of whether a plaintiff’s suffering which occurs incident to an arrest constitutes actual damage under the uniform law has been expressly decided in Mouse v. Central Savings & Trust Co. (1929) 120 Ohio St. 599 [ 167 N.E. 868 ]. 13 In that case the court stated that: “ [W]hen the Legislature enacted this section, it did not intend to deprive a depositor of the right of action in case of the nonpayment of his check through error or mistake, and without malice, but intended merely to eliminate speculative and punitive damages in the absence of malice on the part of the depositary. ‘Actua | 1 | 1963–1963 |
Swamp Land District No. 307 v. Glide
green
1 sentence1913Code, sec. 325 ; Swamp Land etc. v. Glide, 112 Cal. 90 , [ 44 Pac. 451 ].) Counsel admit their inability to furnish authority sustaining the doctrine of such a repeal, and the absence of such authority is a strong argument against the soundness of the doctrine. | 1 | 1913–1913 |
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.