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 1957–1963 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 |
|---|---|---|
Edgett v. Fairchildgreen2 sentences1963(Stickel v. Durfee, 88 Cal.App.2d 402, 406 [ 199 P.2d 16 ] ; Edgett v. Fairchild, 153 Cal.App.2d 734, 738 [ 314 P.2d 973 ].) In determining whether or not the evidence supports the theory of the requested instruction, a reviewing court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party offering the instruction. 1963(Stickel v. Durfee, 88 Cal.App.2d 402, 406 [ 199 P.2d 16 ] ; Edgett v. Fairchild, 153 Cal.App.2d 734, 738 [ 314 P.2d 973 ].) In determining whether or not the evidence supports the theory of the requested instruction, a reviewing court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party offering the instruction. | 2 | 2 |
Sills v. Los Angeles Transit Linesgreen2 sentences1963(Sills v. Los Angeles Transit Lines, 40 Cal.2d 630, 633 [ 255 P.2d 795 ] ; Edgett v. Fairchild, supra, p. 738 .) “The doctrine of assumption of risk is based on the theory that there has been a voluntary acceptance of a risk, and such acceptance, whether express or implied, requires knowledge and appreciation of the risk.” (Hayes v. Richfield Oil Corp., 38 Cal.2d 375, 384 [ 240 P.2d 580 ] ; Prescott v. Ralphs Grocery Co., 42 Cal.2d 158, 161-162 [ 265 P.2d 904 ] ; see Rest., Torts, § 893, p. 491; Prosser on Torts (2d ed. 1955) § 55, pp. 303-314.) This theory is different than that upon which co 1963(Sills v. Los Angeles Transit Lines, 40 Cal.2d 630, 633 [ 255 P.2d 795 ] ; Edgett v. Fairchild, supra, p. 738 .) “The doctrine of assumption of risk is based on the theory that there has been a voluntary acceptance of a risk, and such acceptance, whether express or implied, requires knowledge and appreciation of the risk.” (Hayes v. Richfield Oil Corp., 38 Cal.2d 375, 384 [ 240 P.2d 580 ] ; Prescott v. Ralphs Grocery Co., 42 Cal.2d 158, 161-162 [ 265 P.2d 904 ] ; see Rest., Torts, § 893, p. 491; Prosser on Torts (2d ed. 1955) § 55, pp. 303-314.) This theory is different than that upon which co | 1 | 3 |
Hayes v. Richfield Oil Corp.green2 sentences1963(Sills v. Los Angeles Transit Lines, 40 Cal.2d 630, 633 [ 255 P.2d 795 ] ; Edgett v. Fairchild, supra, p. 738 .) “The doctrine of assumption of risk is based on the theory that there has been a voluntary acceptance of a risk, and such acceptance, whether express or implied, requires knowledge and appreciation of the risk.” (Hayes v. Richfield Oil Corp., 38 Cal.2d 375, 384 [ 240 P.2d 580 ] ; Prescott v. Ralphs Grocery Co., 42 Cal.2d 158, 161-162 [ 265 P.2d 904 ] ; see Rest., Torts, § 893, p. 491; Prosser on Torts (2d ed. 1955) § 55, pp. 303-314.) This theory is different than that upon which co 1963(Sills v. Los Angeles Transit Lines, 40 Cal.2d 630, 633 [ 255 P.2d 795 ] ; Edgett v. Fairchild, supra, p. 738 .) “The doctrine of assumption of risk is based on the theory that there has been a voluntary acceptance of a risk, and such acceptance, whether express or implied, requires knowledge and appreciation of the risk.” (Hayes v. Richfield Oil Corp., 38 Cal.2d 375, 384 [ 240 P.2d 580 ] ; Prescott v. Ralphs Grocery Co., 42 Cal.2d 158, 161-162 [ 265 P.2d 904 ] ; see Rest., Torts, § 893, p. 491; Prosser on Torts (2d ed. 1955) § 55, pp. 303-314.) This theory is different than that upon which co | 1 | 1 |
Stickel v. Durfeegreen2 sentences1963(Stickel v. Durfee, 88 Cal.App.2d 402, 406 [ 199 P.2d 16 ] ; Edgett v. Fairchild, 153 Cal.App.2d 734, 738 [ 314 P.2d 973 ].) In determining whether or not the evidence supports the theory of the requested instruction, a reviewing court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party offering the instruction. 1963(Stickel v. Durfee, 88 Cal.App.2d 402, 406 [ 199 P.2d 16 ] ; Edgett v. Fairchild, 153 Cal.App.2d 734, 738 [ 314 P.2d 973 ].) In determining whether or not the evidence supports the theory of the requested instruction, a reviewing court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party offering the instruction. | 1 | 1 |
Prescott v. Ralphs Grocery Co.green2 sentences1963(Sills v. Los Angeles Transit Lines, 40 Cal.2d 630, 633 [ 255 P.2d 795 ] ; Edgett v. Fairchild, supra, p. 738 .) “The doctrine of assumption of risk is based on the theory that there has been a voluntary acceptance of a risk, and such acceptance, whether express or implied, requires knowledge and appreciation of the risk.” (Hayes v. Richfield Oil Corp., 38 Cal.2d 375, 384 [ 240 P.2d 580 ] ; Prescott v. Ralphs Grocery Co., 42 Cal.2d 158, 161-162 [ 265 P.2d 904 ] ; see Rest., Torts, § 893, p. 491; Prosser on Torts (2d ed. 1955) § 55, pp. 303-314.) This theory is different than that upon which co 1963(Sills v. Los Angeles Transit Lines, 40 Cal.2d 630, 633 [ 255 P.2d 795 ] ; Edgett v. Fairchild, supra, p. 738 .) “The doctrine of assumption of risk is based on the theory that there has been a voluntary acceptance of a risk, and such acceptance, whether express or implied, requires knowledge and appreciation of the risk.” (Hayes v. Richfield Oil Corp., 38 Cal.2d 375, 384 [ 240 P.2d 580 ] ; Prescott v. Ralphs Grocery Co., 42 Cal.2d 158, 161-162 [ 265 P.2d 904 ] ; see Rest., Torts, § 893, p. 491; Prosser on Torts (2d ed. 1955) § 55, pp. 303-314.) This theory is different than that upon which co | 1 | 1 |
People v. Sweeneygreen2 sentences1961(See People v. Sellas, 114 Cal.App. 367, 372-377 [ 300 P. 150 ]; Ricdy v. Bidwell, 93 Cal.App. 202, 208 [ 269 P. 682 ]; cf. People v. Sweeney, 55 Cal.2d 27, 38-39 [ 9 Cal.Rptr. 793 , 357 P.2d 1049 ].) But in the light of the record under review, there is no sound basis for the appellant’s assertion that there was prejudicial error in the giving of the challenged instruction. 1961(See People v. Sellas, 114 Cal.App. 367, 372-377 [ 300 P. 150 ]; Ricdy v. Bidwell, 93 Cal.App. 202, 208 [ 269 P. 682 ]; cf. People v. Sweeney, 55 Cal.2d 27, 38-39 [ 9 Cal.Rptr. 793 , 357 P.2d 1049 ].) But in the light of the record under review, there is no sound basis for the appellant’s assertion that there was prejudicial error in the giving of the challenged instruction. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Sellasgreen2 sentences1961(See People v. Sellas, 114 Cal.App. 367, 372-377 [ 300 P. 150 ]; Ricdy v. Bidwell, 93 Cal.App. 202, 208 [ 269 P. 682 ]; cf. People v. Sweeney, 55 Cal.2d 27, 38-39 [ 9 Cal.Rptr. 793 , 357 P.2d 1049 ].) But in the light of the record under review, there is no sound basis for the appellant’s assertion that there was prejudicial error in the giving of the challenged instruction. 1961(See People v. Sellas, 114 Cal.App. 367, 372-377 [ 300 P. 150 ]; Ricdy v. Bidwell, 93 Cal.App. 202, 208 [ 269 P. 682 ]; cf. People v. Sweeney, 55 Cal.2d 27, 38-39 [ 9 Cal.Rptr. 793 , 357 P.2d 1049 ].) But in the light of the record under review, there is no sound basis for the appellant’s assertion that there was prejudicial error in the giving of the challenged instruction. | 1 | 1 |
Riedy v. Bidwellgreen2 sentences1961(See People v. Sellas, 114 Cal.App. 367, 372-377 [ 300 P. 150 ]; Ricdy v. Bidwell, 93 Cal.App. 202, 208 [ 269 P. 682 ]; cf. People v. Sweeney, 55 Cal.2d 27, 38-39 [ 9 Cal.Rptr. 793 , 357 P.2d 1049 ].) But in the light of the record under review, there is no sound basis for the appellant’s assertion that there was prejudicial error in the giving of the challenged instruction. 1961(See People v. Sellas, 114 Cal.App. 367, 372-377 [ 300 P. 150 ]; Ricdy v. Bidwell, 93 Cal.App. 202, 208 [ 269 P. 682 ]; cf. People v. Sweeney, 55 Cal.2d 27, 38-39 [ 9 Cal.Rptr. 793 , 357 P.2d 1049 ].) But in the light of the record under review, there is no sound basis for the appellant’s assertion that there was prejudicial error in the giving of the challenged instruction. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Wolfsmith v. Marsh
green
2 sentences1963(Wolfsmith v. Marsh (1959) 51 Cal.2d 832, 833 , fn. [ 337 P.2d 70 , 82 A.L.R.2d 1257 ].) Mahoney worked as foreman on the day shift for the contractor boring the tunnel. 1963(Wolfsmith v. Marsh (1959) 51 Cal.2d 832, 833 , fn. [ 337 P.2d 70 , 82 A.L.R.2d 1257 ].) Mahoney worked as foreman on the day shift for the contractor boring the tunnel. | 1 | 1963–1963 |
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.