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 1980–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Sumrall v. Modern Alloys, Inc.green1 sentence2024All of the relevant 4 circumstances must be considered and weighed in relation to one another.’” (Sumrall v. Modern Alloys, Inc. (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 961, 968 (Sumrall).) When more than one 3 The Attorney General acknowledged during oral argument the critical nature of prisoner supervision during food preparation given the presence of potential weapons in a kitchen setting. 4 ‘“An offshoot of the doctrine of respondeat superior is the so-called “going and coming rule.” Under this rule, an employee is not regarded as acting within the scope of employment while going to or coming from the workp | 1 | 1 |
Hunt v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2011(Cf. Hunt v. Superior Court (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 901, 909 [ 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 215 ] [party must have adequate notice that it is agreeing to submit to personal jurisdiction].) Enforcement of forum selection clauses is an offshoot of the principle of inconvenient forum. 2011(Cf. Hunt v. Superior Court (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 901, 909 [ 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 215 ] [party must have adequate notice that it is agreeing to submit to personal jurisdiction].) Enforcement of forum selection clauses is an offshoot of the principle of inconvenient forum. | 1 | 1 |
Olinick v. BMG ENTERTAINMENTgreen2 sentences2011(See, e.g., Olinick v. BMG Entertainment (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 1286, 1294 [ 42 Cal.Rptr.3d 268 ].) Inconvenient forum usually assumes that jurisdiction exists or can be obtained; its main concerns lie elsewhere—the location where witnesses or documents can be found, crowded local courts, keeping down costs, the interests of each prospective forum in adjudicating the controversy. 2011(See, e.g., Olinick v. BMG Entertainment (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 1286, 1294 [ 42 Cal.Rptr.3d 268 ].) Inconvenient forum usually assumes that jurisdiction exists or can be obtained; its main concerns lie elsewhere—the location where witnesses or documents can be found, crowded local courts, keeping down costs, the interests of each prospective forum in adjudicating the controversy. | 1 | 1 |
Sullivan v. Thompsongreen2 sentences2009Co. (1970) 2 Cal.3d 956, 962 [ 88 Cal.Rptr. 188 , 471 P.2d 988 ].) When an employee is engaged in a “special errand” or a “special mission” for the employer it will negate the “going and coming rule.” (Ducey v. Argo Sales Co. (1979) 25 Cal.3d 707, 722 [ 159 Cal.Rptr. 835 , 602 P.2d 755 ]; Trejo v. Maciel (1966) 239 Cal.App.2d 487, 495 [ 48 Cal.Rptr. 765 ]; Sullivan v. Thompson (1939) 30 Cal.App.2d 675, 677-678 [ 87 P.2d 62 ].) An employee “ ‘coming from his home or returning to it on a special errand either as part of his regular duties or at a specific order or request of his employer ... is 2009Co. (1970) 2 Cal.3d 956, 962 [ 88 Cal.Rptr. 188 , 471 P.2d 988 ].) When an employee is engaged in a “special errand” or a “special mission” for the employer it will negate the “going and coming rule.” (Ducey v. Argo Sales Co. (1979) 25 Cal.3d 707, 722 [ 159 Cal.Rptr. 835 , 602 P.2d 755 ]; Trejo v. Maciel (1966) 239 Cal.App.2d 487, 495 [ 48 Cal.Rptr. 765 ]; Sullivan v. Thompson (1939) 30 Cal.App.2d 675, 677-678 [ 87 P.2d 62 ].) An employee “ ‘coming from his home or returning to it on a special errand either as part of his regular duties or at a specific order or request of his employer ... is | 1 | 1 |
Felix v. Asaigreen2 sentences2009Co. (1970) 2 Cal.3d 956, 962 [ 88 Cal.Rptr. 188 , 471 P.2d 988 ].) When an employee is engaged in a “special errand” or a “special mission” for the employer it will negate the “going and coming rule.” (Ducey v. Argo Sales Co. (1979) 25 Cal.3d 707, 722 [ 159 Cal.Rptr. 835 , 602 P.2d 755 ]; Trejo v. Maciel (1966) 239 Cal.App.2d 487, 495 [ 48 Cal.Rptr. 765 ]; Sullivan v. Thompson (1939) 30 Cal.App.2d 675, 677-678 [ 87 P.2d 62 ].) An employee “ ‘coming from his home or returning to it on a special errand either as part of his regular duties or at a specific order or request of his employer ... is 2009Co. (1970) 2 Cal.3d 956, 962 [ 88 Cal.Rptr. 188 , 471 P.2d 988 ].) When an employee is engaged in a “special errand” or a “special mission” for the employer it will negate the “going and coming rule.” (Ducey v. Argo Sales Co. (1979) 25 Cal.3d 707, 722 [ 159 Cal.Rptr. 835 , 602 P.2d 755 ]; Trejo v. Maciel (1966) 239 Cal.App.2d 487, 495 [ 48 Cal.Rptr. 765 ]; Sullivan v. Thompson (1939) 30 Cal.App.2d 675, 677-678 [ 87 P.2d 62 ].) An employee “ ‘coming from his home or returning to it on a special errand either as part of his regular duties or at a specific order or request of his employer ... is | 1 | 1 |
Trejo v. MacIelgreen2 sentences2009Co. (1970) 2 Cal.3d 956, 962 [ 88 Cal.Rptr. 188 , 471 P.2d 988 ].) When an employee is engaged in a “special errand” or a “special mission” for the employer it will negate the “going and coming rule.” (Ducey v. Argo Sales Co. (1979) 25 Cal.3d 707, 722 [ 159 Cal.Rptr. 835 , 602 P.2d 755 ]; Trejo v. Maciel (1966) 239 Cal.App.2d 487, 495 [ 48 Cal.Rptr. 765 ]; Sullivan v. Thompson (1939) 30 Cal.App.2d 675, 677-678 [ 87 P.2d 62 ].) An employee “ ‘coming from his home or returning to it on a special errand either as part of his regular duties or at a specific order or request of his employer ... is 2009Co. (1970) 2 Cal.3d 956, 962 [ 88 Cal.Rptr. 188 , 471 P.2d 988 ].) When an employee is engaged in a “special errand” or a “special mission” for the employer it will negate the “going and coming rule.” (Ducey v. Argo Sales Co. (1979) 25 Cal.3d 707, 722 [ 159 Cal.Rptr. 835 , 602 P.2d 755 ]; Trejo v. Maciel (1966) 239 Cal.App.2d 487, 495 [ 48 Cal.Rptr. 765 ]; Sullivan v. Thompson (1939) 30 Cal.App.2d 675, 677-678 [ 87 P.2d 62 ].) An employee “ ‘coming from his home or returning to it on a special errand either as part of his regular duties or at a specific order or request of his employer ... is | 1 | 1 |
Hinman v. Westinghouse Electric Co.green2 sentences2009Co. (1970) 2 Cal.3d 956, 962 [ 88 Cal.Rptr. 188 , 471 P.2d 988 ].) When an employee is engaged in a “special errand” or a “special mission” for the employer it will negate the “going and coming rule.” (Ducey v. Argo Sales Co. (1979) 25 Cal.3d 707, 722 [ 159 Cal.Rptr. 835 , 602 P.2d 755 ]; Trejo v. Maciel (1966) 239 Cal.App.2d 487, 495 [ 48 Cal.Rptr. 765 ]; Sullivan v. Thompson (1939) 30 Cal.App.2d 675, 677-678 [ 87 P.2d 62 ].) An employee “ ‘coming from his home or returning to it on a special errand either as part of his regular duties or at a specific order or request of his employer ... is 2009Co. (1970) 2 Cal.3d 956, 962 [ 88 Cal.Rptr. 188 , 471 P.2d 988 ].) When an employee is engaged in a “special errand” or a “special mission” for the employer it will negate the “going and coming rule.” (Ducey v. Argo Sales Co. (1979) 25 Cal.3d 707, 722 [ 159 Cal.Rptr. 835 , 602 P.2d 755 ]; Trejo v. Maciel (1966) 239 Cal.App.2d 487, 495 [ 48 Cal.Rptr. 765 ]; Sullivan v. Thompson (1939) 30 Cal.App.2d 675, 677-678 [ 87 P.2d 62 ].) An employee “ ‘coming from his home or returning to it on a special errand either as part of his regular duties or at a specific order or request of his employer ... is | 1 | 1 |
Boynton v. McKalesgreen2 sentences2009Co. (1970) 2 Cal.3d 956, 962 [ 88 Cal.Rptr. 188 , 471 P.2d 988 ].) When an employee is engaged in a “special errand” or a “special mission” for the employer it will negate the “going and coming rule.” (Ducey v. Argo Sales Co. (1979) 25 Cal.3d 707, 722 [ 159 Cal.Rptr. 835 , 602 P.2d 755 ]; Trejo v. Maciel (1966) 239 Cal.App.2d 487, 495 [ 48 Cal.Rptr. 765 ]; Sullivan v. Thompson (1939) 30 Cal.App.2d 675, 677-678 [ 87 P.2d 62 ].) An employee “ ‘coming from his home or returning to it on a special errand either as part of his regular duties or at a specific order or request of his employer ... is 2009Co. (1970) 2 Cal.3d 956, 962 [ 88 Cal.Rptr. 188 , 471 P.2d 988 ].) When an employee is engaged in a “special errand” or a “special mission” for the employer it will negate the “going and coming rule.” (Ducey v. Argo Sales Co. (1979) 25 Cal.3d 707, 722 [ 159 Cal.Rptr. 835 , 602 P.2d 755 ]; Trejo v. Maciel (1966) 239 Cal.App.2d 487, 495 [ 48 Cal.Rptr. 765 ]; Sullivan v. Thompson (1939) 30 Cal.App.2d 675, 677-678 [ 87 P.2d 62 ].) An employee “ ‘coming from his home or returning to it on a special errand either as part of his regular duties or at a specific order or request of his employer ... is | 1 | 1 |
Tognazzini v. SAN LUIS COASTAL SCHOOL DIST.green2 sentences2009Co. (1970) 2 Cal.3d 956, 962 [ 88 Cal.Rptr. 188 , 471 P.2d 988 ].) When an employee is engaged in a “special errand” or a “special mission” for the employer it will negate the “going and coming rule.” (Ducey v. Argo Sales Co. (1979) 25 Cal.3d 707, 722 [ 159 Cal.Rptr. 835 , 602 P.2d 755 ]; Trejo v. Maciel (1966) 239 Cal.App.2d 487, 495 [ 48 Cal.Rptr. 765 ]; Sullivan v. Thompson (1939) 30 Cal.App.2d 675, 677-678 [ 87 P.2d 62 ].) An employee “ ‘coming from his home or returning to it on a special errand either as part of his regular duties or at a specific order or request of his employer ... is 2009Co. (1970) 2 Cal.3d 956, 962 [ 88 Cal.Rptr. 188 , 471 P.2d 988 ].) When an employee is engaged in a “special errand” or a “special mission” for the employer it will negate the “going and coming rule.” (Ducey v. Argo Sales Co. (1979) 25 Cal.3d 707, 722 [ 159 Cal.Rptr. 835 , 602 P.2d 755 ]; Trejo v. Maciel (1966) 239 Cal.App.2d 487, 495 [ 48 Cal.Rptr. 765 ]; Sullivan v. Thompson (1939) 30 Cal.App.2d 675, 677-678 [ 87 P.2d 62 ].) An employee “ ‘coming from his home or returning to it on a special errand either as part of his regular duties or at a specific order or request of his employer ... is | 1 | 1 |
Ducey v. Argo Sales Co.green2 sentences2009Co. (1970) 2 Cal.3d 956, 962 [ 88 Cal.Rptr. 188 , 471 P.2d 988 ].) When an employee is engaged in a “special errand” or a “special mission” for the employer it will negate the “going and coming rule.” (Ducey v. Argo Sales Co. (1979) 25 Cal.3d 707, 722 [ 159 Cal.Rptr. 835 , 602 P.2d 755 ]; Trejo v. Maciel (1966) 239 Cal.App.2d 487, 495 [ 48 Cal.Rptr. 765 ]; Sullivan v. Thompson (1939) 30 Cal.App.2d 675, 677-678 [ 87 P.2d 62 ].) An employee “ ‘coming from his home or returning to it on a special errand either as part of his regular duties or at a specific order or request of his employer ... is 2009Co. (1970) 2 Cal.3d 956, 962 [ 88 Cal.Rptr. 188 , 471 P.2d 988 ].) When an employee is engaged in a “special errand” or a “special mission” for the employer it will negate the “going and coming rule.” (Ducey v. Argo Sales Co. (1979) 25 Cal.3d 707, 722 [ 159 Cal.Rptr. 835 , 602 P.2d 755 ]; Trejo v. Maciel (1966) 239 Cal.App.2d 487, 495 [ 48 Cal.Rptr. 765 ]; Sullivan v. Thompson (1939) 30 Cal.App.2d 675, 677-678 [ 87 P.2d 62 ].) An employee “ ‘coming from his home or returning to it on a special errand either as part of his regular duties or at a specific order or request of his employer ... is | 1 | 1 |
Bailey v. Filco, Inc.green2 sentences2006CACI No. 3720 provides that in order to show that an employee was acting within *162 the scope of employment when a plaintiff was harmed, the plaintiff must show that the conduct was either “reasonably related to the kinds of tasks that the [employee/agent] was employed to perform” or was “reasonably foreseeable in light of the employer’s business or the [agent’s/employee’s job] responsibilities.” (See also Bailey v. Filco, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1552, 1559-1560 [ 56 Cal.Rptr.2d 333 ].) An offshoot of the doctrine of respondeat superior is the so-called “going and coming rule.” Under this 2006CACI No. 3720 provides that in order to show that an employee was acting within *162 the scope of employment when a plaintiff was harmed, the plaintiff must show that the conduct was either “reasonably related to the kinds of tasks that the [employee/agent] was employed to perform” or was “reasonably foreseeable in light of the employer’s business or the [agent’s/employee’s job] responsibilities.” (See also Bailey v. Filco, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1552, 1559-1560 [ 56 Cal.Rptr.2d 333 ].) An offshoot of the doctrine of respondeat superior is the so-called “going and coming rule.” Under this | 1 | 1 |
Rogers v. Richmondgreen2 sentences1980(Rogers v. Richmond (1961) 365 U.S. 534, 541 [ 5 L.Ed.2d 760, 766-767 , 81 S.Ct. 735 ].) As put by Traynor, J., concurring in People v. Garner (1961) 57 Cal.2d 135, 156, 163 [ 18 Cal.Rptr. 40 , 367 P.2d 680 ], “In the case of coerced confessions, the evidence may be unreliable; even if reliable, a free society cannot condone police methods that outrage the rights and dignity of a person whether they include physical brutality or psychological coercion.” An offshoot of the rule against coerced confessions prohibits the use of confessions obtained by false promises, which are looked upon as a ty 1980(Rogers v. Richmond (1961) 365 U.S. 534, 541 [ 5 L.Ed.2d 760, 766-767 , 81 S.Ct. 735 ].) As put by Traynor, J., concurring in People v. Garner (1961) 57 Cal.2d 135, 156, 163 [ 18 Cal.Rptr. 40 , 367 P.2d 680 ], “In the case of coerced confessions, the evidence may be unreliable; even if reliable, a free society cannot condone police methods that outrage the rights and dignity of a person whether they include physical brutality or psychological coercion.” An offshoot of the rule against coerced confessions prohibits the use of confessions obtained by false promises, which are looked upon as a ty | 1 | 1 |
People v. Garnergreen2 sentences1980(Rogers v. Richmond (1961) 365 U.S. 534, 541 [ 5 L.Ed.2d 760, 766-767 , 81 S.Ct. 735 ].) As put by Traynor, J., concurring in People v. Garner (1961) 57 Cal.2d 135, 156, 163 [ 18 Cal.Rptr. 40 , 367 P.2d 680 ], “In the case of coerced confessions, the evidence may be unreliable; even if reliable, a free society cannot condone police methods that outrage the rights and dignity of a person whether they include physical brutality or psychological coercion.” An offshoot of the rule against coerced confessions prohibits the use of confessions obtained by false promises, which are looked upon as a ty 1980(Rogers v. Richmond (1961) 365 U.S. 534, 541 [ 5 L.Ed.2d 760, 766-767 , 81 S.Ct. 735 ].) As put by Traynor, J., concurring in People v. Garner (1961) 57 Cal.2d 135, 156, 163 [ 18 Cal.Rptr. 40 , 367 P.2d 680 ], “In the case of coerced confessions, the evidence may be unreliable; even if reliable, a free society cannot condone police methods that outrage the rights and dignity of a person whether they include physical brutality or psychological coercion.” An offshoot of the rule against coerced confessions prohibits the use of confessions obtained by false promises, which are looked upon as a ty | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Jeewarat v. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.
green
1 sentence2024Entertainment Inc. (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 427, 435 , italics added.) 11 reasonable inference can be drawn from the facts, taking the issue from the trier of fact is unwarranted. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Ronald A. Baptist v. Robinson
green
2 sentences2009Respondeat superior liability should apply only to the types of injuries that “ ‘as a practical matter are sure to occur in the conduct of the employer’s enterprise.’ ” ’ [Citation.]” (Baptist, supra, 143 Cal.App.4th at p. 161 .) “An offshoot of the doctrine of respondeat superior is the so-called ‘going and coining rule.’ Under this rule, an employee is not regarded as acting within the scope of employment while going to or coming from the workplace. [Citation.] This is based on the concept that the employment relationship is suspended from the time the employee leaves work until he or she re 2009Respondeat superior liability should apply only to the types of injuries that “ ‘as a practical matter are sure to occur in the conduct of the employer’s enterprise.’ ” ’ [Citation.]” (Baptist, supra, 143 Cal.App.4th at p. 161 .) “An offshoot of the doctrine of respondeat superior is the so-called ‘going and coining rule.’ Under this rule, an employee is not regarded as acting within the scope of employment while going to or coming from the workplace. [Citation.] This is based on the concept that the employment relationship is suspended from the time the employee leaves work until he or she re | 1 | 2009–2009 |
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.