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 1942–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re Rosenkrantzgreen2 sentences2007(Id. at pp. 660, 667, 128 Cal.Rptr.2d 104 , 59 P.3d 174 .) [4] Where the facts presented at the hearing would support two different interpretations, the Board's interpretation must be deferred to. 2007(Id. at pp. 660, 667, 128 Cal.Rptr.2d 104 , 59 P.3d 174 .) [4] Where the facts presented at the hearing would support two different interpretations, the Board's interpretation must be deferred to. | 1 | 1 |
Raber v. Tumingreen2 sentences1954(Raber v. Tumin, 36 Cal.2d 654, 656 [ 226 P.2d 574 ].) Plaintiff makes two contentions: (1) There was sufficient direct evidence presented to support an inference of negligence by the defendants; (2) under the facts presented the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was applicable to establish a prima facie ease. 1954(Raber v. Tumin, 36 Cal.2d 654, 656 [ 226 P.2d 574 ].) Plaintiff makes two contentions: (1) There was sufficient direct evidence presented to support an inference of negligence by the defendants; (2) under the facts presented the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was applicable to establish a prima facie ease. | 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. Watson
green
1 sentence2025The People argue “any error was harmless because the court’s finding was supported by the facts presented at the hearing.” The parties agree that we should analyze this harmless error argument under the standard set forth in People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Flood
green
1 sentence2006An element of that crime is that the person driving the pursuing vehicle is a peace officer. {Flood, supra, 18 Cal.4th at p. 475 .) The trial court, however, failed to instruct the jury that it should determine this issue; rather, it “informed the jury—in conformity with the uncontradicted evidence that had been presented at trial—that the police officers in that vehicle were peace officers, thus effectively removing this element of the crime from the jury’s consideration.” {Ibid.) The California Supreme Court considered whether the error of failing to instruct on this element was subject to h | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Dexter v. Pierson
green
2 sentences1942(Brownrigg v. DeFrees, 196 Cal. 534 [ 238 Pac. 714 ]; Dexter v. Pierson, 214 Cal. 247 [ 4 P. (2d) 932 ].) The above reference to statements and admissions in the appellant’s briefs is simply to indicate that the point is without merit, but a sufficient answer to appellant’s contention is that the record on appeal is not complete, and it must be assumed that the facts presented on the hearing of the motion to dismiss supported the trial court’s denial thereof. 1942(Brownrigg v. DeFrees, 196 Cal. 534 [ 238 Pac. 714 ]; Dexter v. Pierson, 214 Cal. 247 [ 4 P. (2d) 932 ].) The above reference to statements and admissions in the appellant’s briefs is simply to indicate that the point is without merit, but a sufficient answer to appellant’s contention is that the record on appeal is not complete, and it must be assumed that the facts presented on the hearing of the motion to dismiss supported the trial court’s denial thereof. | 1 | 1942–1942 |
Brownrigg v. Defrees
green
2 sentences1942(Brownrigg v. DeFrees, 196 Cal. 534 [ 238 Pac. 714 ]; Dexter v. Pierson, 214 Cal. 247 [ 4 P. (2d) 932 ].) The above reference to statements and admissions in the appellant’s briefs is simply to indicate that the point is without merit, but a sufficient answer to appellant’s contention is that the record on appeal is not complete, and it must be assumed that the facts presented on the hearing of the motion to dismiss supported the trial court’s denial thereof. 1942(Brownrigg v. DeFrees, 196 Cal. 534 [ 238 Pac. 714 ]; Dexter v. Pierson, 214 Cal. 247 [ 4 P. (2d) 932 ].) The above reference to statements and admissions in the appellant’s briefs is simply to indicate that the point is without merit, but a sufficient answer to appellant’s contention is that the record on appeal is not complete, and it must be assumed that the facts presented on the hearing of the motion to dismiss supported the trial court’s denial thereof. | 1 | 1942–1942 |
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.