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 1952–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ringler Associates Inc. v. Maryland Casualty Co.green2 sentences2002Exchange (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1106, 1114 [ 44 Cal.Rptr.2d 272 ], and Ringler Associates Inc. v. Maryland Casualty Co. (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 1165, 1184 [ 96 Cal.Rptr.2d 136 ], for the proposition that its duty to defend should be based solely on the evidence available to it at the time it denied Lamb’s claim. 2002Exchange (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1106, 1114 [ 44 Cal.Rptr.2d 272 ], and Ringler Associates Inc. v. Maryland Casualty Co. (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 1165, 1184 [ 96 Cal.Rptr.2d 136 ], for the proposition that its duty to defend should be based solely on the evidence available to it at the time it denied Lamb’s claim. | 1 | 1 |
Gunderson v. Fire Insurance Exchangegreen2 sentences2002Exchange (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1106, 1114 [ 44 Cal.Rptr.2d 272 ], and Ringler Associates Inc. v. Maryland Casualty Co. (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 1165, 1184 [ 96 Cal.Rptr.2d 136 ], for the proposition that its duty to defend should be based solely on the evidence available to it at the time it denied Lamb’s claim. 2002Exchange (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1106, 1114 [ 44 Cal.Rptr.2d 272 ], and Ringler Associates Inc. v. Maryland Casualty Co. (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 1165, 1184 [ 96 Cal.Rptr.2d 136 ], for the proposition that its duty to defend should be based solely on the evidence available to it at the time it denied Lamb’s claim. | 1 | 1 |
Garza v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Boardgreen2 sentences1976App. Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 318-319 [ 90 Cal.Rptr. 355 , 475 P.2d 451 ]) which deals with referees’ decisions in habeas corpus cases, we do not feel that the Supreme Court intended to limit the Lamb rule to compensation cases. 1976App. Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 318-319 [ 90 Cal.Rptr. 355 , 475 P.2d 451 ]) which deals with referees’ decisions in habeas corpus cases, we do not feel that the Supreme Court intended to limit the Lamb rule to compensation cases. | 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. Wende
green
2 sentences2015Counsel presents no argument for reversal of the order denying Lamb's motion for modification of his sentence, but counsel asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 . 2015Counsel presents no argument for reversal of the order denying Lamb's motion for modification of his sentence, but counsel asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Lamb
green
2 sentences2005It held that the defendant’s “acts in masturbating the victim fall within the definition of mutual masturbation set forth in section 803, subdivision (g), and thus qualify for the extended statute of limitations described in that section.” ( 76 Cal.App.4th at p. 682 .) We agree with the Lamb analysis. 2005It held that the defendant’s “acts in masturbating the victim fall within the definition of mutual masturbation set forth in section 803, subdivision (g), and thus qualify for the extended statute of limitations described in that section.” ( 76 Cal.App.4th at p. 682 .) We agree with the Lamb analysis. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
In Re Branch
green
2 sentences1976Since the Lamb rule is based on In re Branch (1969) 70 Cal.2d 200, 203 , footnote 1 [ 74 Cal.Rptr. 238 , 449 P.2d 174 ] (see Garza v. Workmen’s Comp. 1976Since the Lamb rule is based on In re Branch (1969) 70 Cal.2d 200, 203 , footnote 1 [ 74 Cal.Rptr. 238 , 449 P.2d 174 ] (see Garza v. Workmen’s Comp. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board
green
2 sentences1976To give it this significance does not seem to us materially more difficult than to heed the other factors which in sum determine whether evidence is ‘substantial.’ ” (At pp. 496-497 [ 95 L.Ed. at p. 472 ].) We feel that this flexible standard for determining the weight to be given the referee’s decision complies with the Lamb rule while preserving the “substantial evidence in the light of the whole record” test mandated by Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, subdivision (c). *949 We next determine whether the Director’s decision is supported by substantial evidence in the light of the whol 1976To give it this significance does not seem to us materially more difficult than to heed the other factors which in sum determine whether evidence is ‘substantial.’ ” (At pp. 496-497 [ 95 L.Ed. at p. 472 ].) We feel that this flexible standard for determining the weight to be given the referee’s decision complies with the Lamb rule while preserving the “substantial evidence in the light of the whole record” test mandated by Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, subdivision (c). *949 We next determine whether the Director’s decision is supported by substantial evidence in the light of the whol | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Estate of Dupont
green
2 sentences1952The following language from Estate of Dupont, 60 Cal.App.2d 276 , at page 289 [ 140 P.2d 866 ], is applicable to the instant ease: “Counsel for appellants, Hollingsworth, Reid and Lamb claim that the trial judge committed prejudicial error in questioning various witnesses, and in admonishing counsel not to interrupt witnesses before their answers were complete. 1952The following language from Estate of Dupont, 60 Cal.App.2d 276 , at page 289 [ 140 P.2d 866 ], is applicable to the instant ease: “Counsel for appellants, Hollingsworth, Reid and Lamb claim that the trial judge committed prejudicial error in questioning various witnesses, and in admonishing counsel not to interrupt witnesses before their answers were complete. | 1 | 1952–1952 |
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.