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 2 courts 1925–1971 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 |
|---|---|---|
Crocker-Woolworth National Bank v. Nevada Bankgreen2 sentences1971We would suppose that most mistakes of fact occur through failure to resort to means of knowledge.” In Crocker-Woolworth Bank v. Nevada Bank, 139 Cal. 564, 572 [ 73 P. 456 ], there is this further statement of the rule (quoting a New York case) that “ ‘money paid under a mistake of fact may be recovered back, however negligent the party paying may have been in making the mistake, unless the payment has caused such a change in the position of the other party that it would be unjust to require him to refund. . . .’” While Cal-Pacific does not cite the above decision, or later cases in accord the 1971We would suppose that most mistakes of fact occur through failure to resort to means of knowledge.” In Crocker-Woolworth Bank v. Nevada Bank, 139 Cal. 564, 572 [ 73 P. 456 ], there is this further statement of the rule (quoting a New York case) that “ ‘money paid under a mistake of fact may be recovered back, however negligent the party paying may have been in making the mistake, unless the payment has caused such a change in the position of the other party that it would be unjust to require him to refund. . . .’” While Cal-Pacific does not cite the above decision, or later cases in accord the | 1 | 1 |
People v. Rothrockgreen2 sentences1948(People v. Methever, 132 Cal. 326, 329 [ 64 P. 481 ]; People v. Rothrock, 21 Cal.App.2d 116, 119-120 [ 68 P.2d 364 ]; see People v. Cox, 67 Cal.App.2d 166 [ 153 P.2d 362 ] [blow on the head]; People v. Freeman, 61 Cal. App.2d 110 [ 142 P.2d 435 ] [epilepsy]; 18 So.Cal.L.Rev. 290 [1945].) The error in instructing the jury that defendant had the burden of proving unconsciousness by a preponderance of the evidence was not cured by the further statement in the instruction that ‘ ‘ The rule of law just announced does not change, or make an exception to, the law which places upon the people the burd 1948(People v. Methever, 132 Cal. 326, 329 [ 64 P. 481 ]; People v. Rothrock, 21 Cal.App.2d 116, 119-120 [ 68 P.2d 364 ]; see People v. Cox, 67 Cal.App.2d 166 [ 153 P.2d 362 ] [blow on the head]; People v. Freeman, 61 Cal. App.2d 110 [ 142 P.2d 435 ] [epilepsy]; 18 So.Cal.L.Rev. 290 [1945].) The error in instructing the jury that defendant had the burden of proving unconsciousness by a preponderance of the evidence was not cured by the further statement in the instruction that ‘ ‘ The rule of law just announced does not change, or make an exception to, the law which places upon the people the burd | 1 | 1 |
People v. Coxgreen2 sentences1948(People v. Methever, 132 Cal. 326, 329 [ 64 P. 481 ]; People v. Rothrock, 21 Cal.App.2d 116, 119-120 [ 68 P.2d 364 ]; see People v. Cox, 67 Cal.App.2d 166 [ 153 P.2d 362 ] [blow on the head]; People v. Freeman, 61 Cal. App.2d 110 [ 142 P.2d 435 ] [epilepsy]; 18 So.Cal.L.Rev. 290 [1945].) The error in instructing the jury that defendant had the burden of proving unconsciousness by a preponderance of the evidence was not cured by the further statement in the instruction that ‘ ‘ The rule of law just announced does not change, or make an exception to, the law which places upon the people the burd 1948(People v. Methever, 132 Cal. 326, 329 [ 64 P. 481 ]; People v. Rothrock, 21 Cal.App.2d 116, 119-120 [ 68 P.2d 364 ]; see People v. Cox, 67 Cal.App.2d 166 [ 153 P.2d 362 ] [blow on the head]; People v. Freeman, 61 Cal. App.2d 110 [ 142 P.2d 435 ] [epilepsy]; 18 So.Cal.L.Rev. 290 [1945].) The error in instructing the jury that defendant had the burden of proving unconsciousness by a preponderance of the evidence was not cured by the further statement in the instruction that ‘ ‘ The rule of law just announced does not change, or make an exception to, the law which places upon the people the burd | 1 | 1 |
People v. Metheverred2 sentences1948(People v. Methever, 132 Cal. 326, 329 [ 64 P. 481 ]; People v. Rothrock, 21 Cal.App.2d 116, 119-120 [ 68 P.2d 364 ]; see People v. Cox, 67 Cal.App.2d 166 [ 153 P.2d 362 ] [blow on the head]; People v. Freeman, 61 Cal. App.2d 110 [ 142 P.2d 435 ] [epilepsy]; 18 So.Cal.L.Rev. 290 [1945].) The error in instructing the jury that defendant had the burden of proving unconsciousness by a preponderance of the evidence was not cured by the further statement in the instruction that ‘ ‘ The rule of law just announced does not change, or make an exception to, the law which places upon the people the burd 1948(People v. Methever, 132 Cal. 326, 329 [ 64 P. 481 ]; People v. Rothrock, 21 Cal.App.2d 116, 119-120 [ 68 P.2d 364 ]; see People v. Cox, 67 Cal.App.2d 166 [ 153 P.2d 362 ] [blow on the head]; People v. Freeman, 61 Cal. App.2d 110 [ 142 P.2d 435 ] [epilepsy]; 18 So.Cal.L.Rev. 290 [1945].) The error in instructing the jury that defendant had the burden of proving unconsciousness by a preponderance of the evidence was not cured by the further statement in the instruction that ‘ ‘ The rule of law just announced does not change, or make an exception to, the law which places upon the people the burd | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Brown v. Regan
green
2 sentences1955Relying on Brown v. Regan, 10 Cal.2d 519 [ 75 P.2d 1063 ], and Quinn v. Rosenfeld, 15 Cal. 2d 486 [ 102 P.2d 317 ], plaintiff argues that this was error because there was no testimony that the traffic light on Monterey and Glendale was in actual operation at the time of the accident. 1955Relying on Brown v. Regan, 10 Cal.2d 519 [ 75 P.2d 1063 ], and Quinn v. Rosenfeld, 15 Cal. 2d 486 [ 102 P.2d 317 ], plaintiff argues that this was error because there was no testimony that the traffic light on Monterey and Glendale was in actual operation at the time of the accident. | 1 | 1955–1955 |
Quinn v. Rosenfeld
green
2 sentences1955Relying on Brown v. Regan, 10 Cal.2d 519 [ 75 P.2d 1063 ], and Quinn v. Rosenfeld, 15 Cal. 2d 486 [ 102 P.2d 317 ], plaintiff argues that this was error because there was no testimony that the traffic light on Monterey and Glendale was in actual operation at the time of the accident. 1955Relying on Brown v. Regan, 10 Cal.2d 519 [ 75 P.2d 1063 ], and Quinn v. Rosenfeld, 15 Cal. 2d 486 [ 102 P.2d 317 ], plaintiff argues that this was error because there was no testimony that the traffic light on Monterey and Glendale was in actual operation at the time of the accident. | 1 | 1955–1955 |
People v. Freeman
green
2 sentences1948(People v. Methever, 132 Cal. 326, 329 [ 64 P. 481 ]; People v. Rothrock, 21 Cal.App.2d 116, 119-120 [ 68 P.2d 364 ]; see People v. Cox, 67 Cal.App.2d 166 [ 153 P.2d 362 ] [blow on the head]; People v. Freeman, 61 Cal. App.2d 110 [ 142 P.2d 435 ] [epilepsy]; 18 So.Cal.L.Rev. 290 [1945].) The error in instructing the jury that defendant had the burden of proving unconsciousness by a preponderance of the evidence was not cured by the further statement in the instruction that ‘ ‘ The rule of law just announced does not change, or make an exception to, the law which places upon the people the burd 1948(People v. Methever, 132 Cal. 326, 329 [ 64 P. 481 ]; People v. Rothrock, 21 Cal.App.2d 116, 119-120 [ 68 P.2d 364 ]; see People v. Cox, 67 Cal.App.2d 166 [ 153 P.2d 362 ] [blow on the head]; People v. Freeman, 61 Cal. App.2d 110 [ 142 P.2d 435 ] [epilepsy]; 18 So.Cal.L.Rev. 290 [1945].) The error in instructing the jury that defendant had the burden of proving unconsciousness by a preponderance of the evidence was not cured by the further statement in the instruction that ‘ ‘ The rule of law just announced does not change, or make an exception to, the law which places upon the people the burd | 1 | 1948–1948 |
People v. Simonsen
green
1 sentence1926In People v. Simonson, 107 Cal. 345 [ 40 Pac. 440 ], this court declared the rule as follows: ‘The term “corpus delicti” involves the elements of crime,’ and that ‘defendant’s admissions cannot be used to establish any necessary element in the commission of the crime, ’ ” citing a number of cases. | 1 | 1926–1926 |
People v. Gasser
green
2 sentences1925(People v. Garnett, 29 Cal. 622 ; People v. Sam Lung, 70 Cal. 515 [ 111 Pac. 673 ].) ” For a further statement of the rule see People v. McCarty, 117 Cal. 65 [ 48 Pac. 984 ]; People v. Nunley, 142 Cal. 441 [ 76 Pac. 45 ]; People v. Gasser, 34 Cal. App. 541 [ 168 Pac. 157 ]. 1925(People v. Garnett, 29 Cal. 622 ; People v. Sam Lung, 70 Cal. 515 [ 111 Pac. 673 ].) ” For a further statement of the rule see People v. McCarty, 117 Cal. 65 [ 48 Pac. 984 ]; People v. Nunley, 142 Cal. 441 [ 76 Pac. 45 ]; People v. Gasser, 34 Cal. App. 541 [ 168 Pac. 157 ]. | 1 | 1925–1925 |
People v. Nunley
green
2 sentences1925(People v. Garnett, 29 Cal. 622 ; People v. Sam Lung, 70 Cal. 515 [ 111 Pac. 673 ].) ” For a further statement of the rule see People v. McCarty, 117 Cal. 65 [ 48 Pac. 984 ]; People v. Nunley, 142 Cal. 441 [ 76 Pac. 45 ]; People v. Gasser, 34 Cal. App. 541 [ 168 Pac. 157 ]. 1925(People v. Garnett, 29 Cal. 622 ; People v. Sam Lung, 70 Cal. 515 [ 111 Pac. 673 ].) ” For a further statement of the rule see People v. McCarty, 117 Cal. 65 [ 48 Pac. 984 ]; People v. Nunley, 142 Cal. 441 [ 76 Pac. 45 ]; People v. Gasser, 34 Cal. App. 541 [ 168 Pac. 157 ]. | 1 | 1925–1925 |
People v. Garnett
green
1 sentence1925(People v. Garnett, 29 Cal. 622 ; People v. Sam Lung, 70 Cal. 515 [ 111 Pac. 673 ].) ” For a further statement of the rule see People v. McCarty, 117 Cal. 65 [ 48 Pac. 984 ]; People v. Nunley, 142 Cal. 441 [ 76 Pac. 45 ]; People v. Gasser, 34 Cal. App. 541 [ 168 Pac. 157 ]. | 1 | 1925–1925 |
People v. Lung
green
1 sentence1925(People v. Garnett, 29 Cal. 622 ; People v. Sam Lung, 70 Cal. 515 [ 111 Pac. 673 ].) ” For a further statement of the rule see People v. McCarty, 117 Cal. 65 [ 48 Pac. 984 ]; People v. Nunley, 142 Cal. 441 [ 76 Pac. 45 ]; People v. Gasser, 34 Cal. App. 541 [ 168 Pac. 157 ]. | 1 | 1925–1925 |
People v. McCarty
neutral
2 sentences1925(People v. Garnett, 29 Cal. 622 ; People v. Sam Lung, 70 Cal. 515 [ 111 Pac. 673 ].) ” For a further statement of the rule see People v. McCarty, 117 Cal. 65 [ 48 Pac. 984 ]; People v. Nunley, 142 Cal. 441 [ 76 Pac. 45 ]; People v. Gasser, 34 Cal. App. 541 [ 168 Pac. 157 ]. 1925(People v. Garnett, 29 Cal. 622 ; People v. Sam Lung, 70 Cal. 515 [ 111 Pac. 673 ].) ” For a further statement of the rule see People v. McCarty, 117 Cal. 65 [ 48 Pac. 984 ]; People v. Nunley, 142 Cal. 441 [ 76 Pac. 45 ]; People v. Gasser, 34 Cal. App. 541 [ 168 Pac. 157 ]. | 1 | 1925–1925 |
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.