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.
5 California opinions name it 1 courts 2012–2025 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Greenberg, Trager & Herbst, LLP v. HSBC Bank USAgreen1 sentence2014This is not a basis for a negligence claim under the CUCC, which “displaces common law duties for a collecting bank.” (Dixon, Laukitis and Downing, P.C. v. Busey Bank (Ill.App. 2013) 993 N.E.2d 580, 586 [bank not liable for negligence in accepting a counterfeit check for deposit because under Illinois version of Uniform Commercial Code “a collecting bank exercises ordinary care when it presents an item, sends notice of dishonor, finally settles an item, or timely notifies the transferor of any delay by performing such actions before midnight following receipt, notice or settlement of an item”] | 1 | 1 |
Dixon, Laukitis and Downing, P.C. v. Busey Bankgreen1 sentence2014This is not a basis for a negligence claim under the CUCC, which “displaces common law duties for a collecting bank.” (Dixon, Laukitis and Downing, P.C. v. Busey Bank (Ill.App. 2013) 993 N.E.2d 580, 586 [bank not liable for negligence in accepting a counterfeit check for deposit because under Illinois version of Uniform Commercial Code “a collecting bank exercises ordinary care when it presents an item, sends notice of dishonor, finally settles an item, or timely notifies the transferor of any delay by performing such actions before midnight following receipt, notice or settlement of an item”] | 1 | 1 |
Chino Commercial Bank, N.A. v. Petersgreen2 sentences2014This is not a basis for a negligence claim under the CUCC, which “displaces common law duties for a collecting bank.” (Dixon, Laukitis and Downing, P.C. v. Busey Bank (Ill.App. 2013) 993 N.E.2d 580, 586 [bank not liable for negligence in accepting a counterfeit check for deposit because under Illinois version of Uniform Commercial Code “a collecting bank exercises ordinary care when it presents an item, sends notice of dishonor, finally settles an item, or timely notifies the transferor of any delay by performing such actions before midnight following receipt, notice or settlement of an item”] 2014This is not a basis for a negligence claim under the CUCC, which “displaces common law duties for a collecting bank.” (Dixon, Laukitis and Downing, P.C. v. Busey Bank (Ill.App. 2013) 993 N.E.2d 580, 586 [bank not liable for negligence in accepting a counterfeit check for deposit because under Illinois version of Uniform Commercial Code “a collecting bank exercises ordinary care when it presents an item, sends notice of dishonor, finally settles an item, or timely notifies the transferor of any delay by performing such actions before midnight following receipt, notice or settlement of an item”] | 1 | 1 |
Avidor v. Sutter's Place, Inc.green1 sentence2014This is not a basis for a negligence claim under the CUCC, which “displaces common law duties for a collecting bank.” (Dixon, Laukitis and Downing, P.C. v. Busey Bank (Ill.App. 2013) 993 N.E.2d 580, 586 [bank not liable for negligence in accepting a counterfeit check for deposit because under Illinois version of Uniform Commercial Code “a collecting bank exercises ordinary care when it presents an item, sends notice of dishonor, finally settles an item, or timely notifies the transferor of any delay by performing such actions before midnight following receipt, notice or settlement of an item”] | 1 | 1 |
Coulter v. Superior Courtred2 sentences2012(Vesely v. Sager (1971) 5 Cal.3d 153, 158-167 [ 95 Cal.Rptr. 623 , 486 P.2d 151 ]; Bernhard v. Harrah’s Club (1976) 16 Cal.3d 313, 323-325 [ 128 Cal.Rptr. 215 , 546 P.2d 719 ]; Coulter v. Superior Court (1978) 21 Cal.3d 144, 149-155 [ 145 Cal.Rptr. 534 , 577 P.2d 669 ].) The Legislature responded swiftly to the change reflected in these specific decisions. 2012(Vesely v. Sager (1971) 5 Cal.3d 153, 158-167 [ 95 Cal.Rptr. 623 , 486 P.2d 151 ]; Bernhard v. Harrah’s Club (1976) 16 Cal.3d 313, 323-325 [ 128 Cal.Rptr. 215 , 546 P.2d 719 ]; Coulter v. Superior Court (1978) 21 Cal.3d 144, 149-155 [ 145 Cal.Rptr. 534 , 577 P.2d 669 ].) The Legislature responded swiftly to the change reflected in these specific decisions. | 1 | 1 |
Vesely v. Sagerred2 sentences2012(Vesely v. Sager (1971) 5 Cal.3d 153, 158-167 [ 95 Cal.Rptr. 623 , 486 P.2d 151 ]; Bernhard v. Harrah’s Club (1976) 16 Cal.3d 313, 323-325 [ 128 Cal.Rptr. 215 , 546 P.2d 719 ]; Coulter v. Superior Court (1978) 21 Cal.3d 144, 149-155 [ 145 Cal.Rptr. 534 , 577 P.2d 669 ].) The Legislature responded swiftly to the change reflected in these specific decisions. 2012(Vesely v. Sager (1971) 5 Cal.3d 153, 158-167 [ 95 Cal.Rptr. 623 , 486 P.2d 151 ]; Bernhard v. Harrah’s Club (1976) 16 Cal.3d 313, 323-325 [ 128 Cal.Rptr. 215 , 546 P.2d 719 ]; Coulter v. Superior Court (1978) 21 Cal.3d 144, 149-155 [ 145 Cal.Rptr. 534 , 577 P.2d 669 ].) The Legislature responded swiftly to the change reflected in these specific decisions. | 1 | 1 |
Bernhard v. Harrah's Clubgreen2 sentences2012(Vesely v. Sager (1971) 5 Cal.3d 153, 158-167 [ 95 Cal.Rptr. 623 , 486 P.2d 151 ]; Bernhard v. Harrah’s Club (1976) 16 Cal.3d 313, 323-325 [ 128 Cal.Rptr. 215 , 546 P.2d 719 ]; Coulter v. Superior Court (1978) 21 Cal.3d 144, 149-155 [ 145 Cal.Rptr. 534 , 577 P.2d 669 ].) The Legislature responded swiftly to the change reflected in these specific decisions. 2012(Vesely v. Sager (1971) 5 Cal.3d 153, 158-167 [ 95 Cal.Rptr. 623 , 486 P.2d 151 ]; Bernhard v. Harrah’s Club (1976) 16 Cal.3d 313, 323-325 [ 128 Cal.Rptr. 215 , 546 P.2d 719 ]; Coulter v. Superior Court (1978) 21 Cal.3d 144, 149-155 [ 145 Cal.Rptr. 534 , 577 P.2d 669 ].) The Legislature responded swiftly to the change reflected in these specific decisions. | 1 | 1 |
Salem v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2012(Salem v. Superior Court (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 595, 599 [ 259 Cal.Rptr. 447 ] (Salem)) That changed in the 1970’s when our Supreme Court issued a series of decisions that applied a foreseeability analysis to conclude that the furnishing of alcohol to an intoxicated consumer could be the basis for a negligence claim. 2012(Salem v. Superior Court (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 595, 599 [ 259 Cal.Rptr. 447 ] (Salem)) That changed in the 1970’s when our Supreme Court issued a series of decisions that applied a foreseeability analysis to conclude that the furnishing of alcohol to an intoxicated consumer could be the basis for a negligence claim. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Semore v. Pool
green
2 sentences2023(Semore v. Pool (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 1087, 1105 .) Ponciano has not alleged a duty owed to him that was breached, causing him to suffer serious emotional distress. 2023(Semore v. Pool (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 1087, 1105 .) “Generally, the right to recover workers’ compensation benefits is the exclusive remedy for an employee against an employer for a workplace injury.” (M.F. v. Pacific Pearl Hotel Management LLC (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 693, 699 .) A plaintiff, however, “may pursue a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress in the employment context where the conduct at issue violates FEHA and also satisfies the elements of the claim.” (Light v. Department of Parks & Recreation (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 75, 101 , italics added.) Chapman’s fifth cause of | 2 | 2023–2023 |
Spates v. Dameron Hospital Ass'n
green
1 sentence2025(Spates v. Dameron Hospital Assn. (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 208, 218 .) Here, appellants identify as a basis for a negligence claim a statute designed to protect a tenant’s property left on the premises after the tenant vacated. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
M.F. v. Pac. Pearl Hotel Mgmt. LLC
green
1 sentence2023(Semore v. Pool (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 1087, 1105 .) “Generally, the right to recover workers’ compensation benefits is the exclusive remedy for an employee against an employer for a workplace injury.” (M.F. v. Pacific Pearl Hotel Management LLC (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 693, 699 .) A plaintiff, however, “may pursue a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress in the employment context where the conduct at issue violates FEHA and also satisfies the elements of the claim.” (Light v. Department of Parks & Recreation (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 75, 101 , italics added.) Chapman’s fifth cause of | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Light v. Cal. Dep't of Parks & Recreation
green
1 sentence2023(Semore v. Pool (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 1087, 1105 .) “Generally, the right to recover workers’ compensation benefits is the exclusive remedy for an employee against an employer for a workplace injury.” (M.F. v. Pacific Pearl Hotel Management LLC (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 693, 699 .) A plaintiff, however, “may pursue a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress in the employment context where the conduct at issue violates FEHA and also satisfies the elements of the claim.” (Light v. Department of Parks & Recreation (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 75, 101 , italics added.) Chapman’s fifth cause of | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Burgess v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence2023Its existence depends upon the foreseeability of the risk and a weighing of policy considerations for and against imposition of liability.’ ” (Burgess v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1064, 1072 .) An employer’s supervisory actions are inherently intentional and not the basis for a negligence claim. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Delfino v. Agilent Technologies, Inc.
green
1 sentence2023(Delfino v. Agilent Technologies, Inc. (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 790, 818 .) An employer’s supervisory actions are inherently intentional and not the basis for a negligence claim. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. FSI, Financial Solutions, Inc.
green
1 sentence2014(FSI, supra, 196 Cal.App.4th at p. 1570 .) In light of this statutory right, Bank’s action was not “wrongful” for purposes of conversion even if it was otherwise liable for damages due to its own negligence. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
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.