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 2002–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. La Fontainegreen1 sentence2020(See People v. Kongs (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 1741, 1750 ; People v. LaFontaine (1978) 79 Cal.App.3d 176, 179-180 [predecessor to Penal Code 5 section 647.6].) 5 A conviction for violating Penal Code section 647.6 would have created a rebuttable evidentiary presumption under Welfare and Institutions Code section 355.1, subdivision (d), that Mia and Emma were at substantial risk of abuse. | 1 | 1 |
Sakuma v. Zellerbach Paper Co.green2 sentences2012(Shively v. Bozanich (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1230, 1245 [ 7 Cal.Rptr.3d 576 , 80 P.3d 676 ]; see Overstock.com, Inc. v. Gradient Analytics, Inc. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 688, 712 [ 61 Cal.Rptr.3d 29 ] (Overstock.com, Inc.); Matson v. Dvorak (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 539, 549 [ 46 Cal.Rptr.2d 880 ] [“The general rule for defamation is that only one ‘who takes a responsible part in the publication is liable for the defamation.’ ”], quoting Osmond v. EWAP, Inc. (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 842, 852 [ 200 Cal.Rptr. 674 ]; Jones v. Calder (1982) 138 Cal.App.3d 128, 134 [ 187 Cal.Rptr. 825 ].) The court in Overstock.c 2012(Shively v. Bozanich (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1230, 1245 [ 7 Cal.Rptr.3d 576 , 80 P.3d 676 ]; see Overstock.com, Inc. v. Gradient Analytics, Inc. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 688, 712 [ 61 Cal.Rptr.3d 29 ] (Overstock.com, Inc.); Matson v. Dvorak (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 539, 549 [ 46 Cal.Rptr.2d 880 ] [“The general rule for defamation is that only one ‘who takes a responsible part in the publication is liable for the defamation.’ ”], quoting Osmond v. EWAP, Inc. (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 842, 852 [ 200 Cal.Rptr. 674 ]; Jones v. Calder (1982) 138 Cal.App.3d 128, 134 [ 187 Cal.Rptr. 825 ].) The court in Overstock.c | 1 | 1 |
Shively v. Bozanichgreen2 sentences2012(Shively v. Bozanich (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1230, 1245 [ 7 Cal.Rptr.3d 576 , 80 P.3d 676 ]; see Overstock.com, Inc. v. Gradient Analytics, Inc. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 688, 712 [ 61 Cal.Rptr.3d 29 ] (Overstock.com, Inc.); Matson v. Dvorak (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 539, 549 [ 46 Cal.Rptr.2d 880 ] [“The general rule for defamation is that only one ‘who takes a responsible part in the publication is liable for the defamation.’ ”], quoting Osmond v. EWAP, Inc. (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 842, 852 [ 200 Cal.Rptr. 674 ]; Jones v. Calder (1982) 138 Cal.App.3d 128, 134 [ 187 Cal.Rptr. 825 ].) The court in Overstock.c 2012(Shively v. Bozanich (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1230, 1245 [ 7 Cal.Rptr.3d 576 , 80 P.3d 676 ]; see Overstock.com, Inc. v. Gradient Analytics, Inc. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 688, 712 [ 61 Cal.Rptr.3d 29 ] (Overstock.com, Inc.); Matson v. Dvorak (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 539, 549 [ 46 Cal.Rptr.2d 880 ] [“The general rule for defamation is that only one ‘who takes a responsible part in the publication is liable for the defamation.’ ”], quoting Osmond v. EWAP, Inc. (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 842, 852 [ 200 Cal.Rptr. 674 ]; Jones v. Calder (1982) 138 Cal.App.3d 128, 134 [ 187 Cal.Rptr. 825 ].) The court in Overstock.c | 1 | 1 |
Osmond v. Ewap, Inc.green2 sentences2012(Shively v. Bozanich (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1230, 1245 [ 7 Cal.Rptr.3d 576 , 80 P.3d 676 ]; see Overstock.com, Inc. v. Gradient Analytics, Inc. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 688, 712 [ 61 Cal.Rptr.3d 29 ] (Overstock.com, Inc.); Matson v. Dvorak (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 539, 549 [ 46 Cal.Rptr.2d 880 ] [“The general rule for defamation is that only one ‘who takes a responsible part in the publication is liable for the defamation.’ ”], quoting Osmond v. EWAP, Inc. (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 842, 852 [ 200 Cal.Rptr. 674 ]; Jones v. Calder (1982) 138 Cal.App.3d 128, 134 [ 187 Cal.Rptr. 825 ].) The court in Overstock.c 2012(Shively v. Bozanich (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1230, 1245 [ 7 Cal.Rptr.3d 576 , 80 P.3d 676 ]; see Overstock.com, Inc. v. Gradient Analytics, Inc. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 688, 712 [ 61 Cal.Rptr.3d 29 ] (Overstock.com, Inc.); Matson v. Dvorak (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 539, 549 [ 46 Cal.Rptr.2d 880 ] [“The general rule for defamation is that only one ‘who takes a responsible part in the publication is liable for the defamation.’ ”], quoting Osmond v. EWAP, Inc. (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 842, 852 [ 200 Cal.Rptr. 674 ]; Jones v. Calder (1982) 138 Cal.App.3d 128, 134 [ 187 Cal.Rptr. 825 ].) The court in Overstock.c | 1 | 1 |
Jones v. Caldergreen2 sentences2012(Shively v. Bozanich (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1230, 1245 [ 7 Cal.Rptr.3d 576 , 80 P.3d 676 ]; see Overstock.com, Inc. v. Gradient Analytics, Inc. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 688, 712 [ 61 Cal.Rptr.3d 29 ] (Overstock.com, Inc.); Matson v. Dvorak (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 539, 549 [ 46 Cal.Rptr.2d 880 ] [“The general rule for defamation is that only one ‘who takes a responsible part in the publication is liable for the defamation.’ ”], quoting Osmond v. EWAP, Inc. (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 842, 852 [ 200 Cal.Rptr. 674 ]; Jones v. Calder (1982) 138 Cal.App.3d 128, 134 [ 187 Cal.Rptr. 825 ].) The court in Overstock.c 2012(Shively v. Bozanich (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1230, 1245 [ 7 Cal.Rptr.3d 576 , 80 P.3d 676 ]; see Overstock.com, Inc. v. Gradient Analytics, Inc. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 688, 712 [ 61 Cal.Rptr.3d 29 ] (Overstock.com, Inc.); Matson v. Dvorak (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 539, 549 [ 46 Cal.Rptr.2d 880 ] [“The general rule for defamation is that only one ‘who takes a responsible part in the publication is liable for the defamation.’ ”], quoting Osmond v. EWAP, Inc. (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 842, 852 [ 200 Cal.Rptr. 674 ]; Jones v. Calder (1982) 138 Cal.App.3d 128, 134 [ 187 Cal.Rptr. 825 ].) The court in Overstock.c | 1 | 1 |
Overstock.com, Inc. v. Gradient Analytics, Inc.green2 sentences2012(Shively v. Bozanich (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1230, 1245 [ 7 Cal.Rptr.3d 576 , 80 P.3d 676 ]; see Overstock.com, Inc. v. Gradient Analytics, Inc. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 688, 712 [ 61 Cal.Rptr.3d 29 ] (Overstock.com, Inc.); Matson v. Dvorak (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 539, 549 [ 46 Cal.Rptr.2d 880 ] [“The general rule for defamation is that only one ‘who takes a responsible part in the publication is liable for the defamation.’ ”], quoting Osmond v. EWAP, Inc. (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 842, 852 [ 200 Cal.Rptr. 674 ]; Jones v. Calder (1982) 138 Cal.App.3d 128, 134 [ 187 Cal.Rptr. 825 ].) The court in Overstock.c 2012(Shively v. Bozanich (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1230, 1245 [ 7 Cal.Rptr.3d 576 , 80 P.3d 676 ]; see Overstock.com, Inc. v. Gradient Analytics, Inc. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 688, 712 [ 61 Cal.Rptr.3d 29 ] (Overstock.com, Inc.); Matson v. Dvorak (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 539, 549 [ 46 Cal.Rptr.2d 880 ] [“The general rule for defamation is that only one ‘who takes a responsible part in the publication is liable for the defamation.’ ”], quoting Osmond v. EWAP, Inc. (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 842, 852 [ 200 Cal.Rptr. 674 ]; Jones v. Calder (1982) 138 Cal.App.3d 128, 134 [ 187 Cal.Rptr. 825 ].) The court in Overstock.c | 1 | 1 |
Bains v. Mooresgreen1 sentence2012(Taus v. Loftus (2007) 40 Cal.4th 683, 713-714 [ 54 Cal.Rptr.3d 775 , 151 P.3d 1185 ].) We decline to “ ‘transmut[e] [the pleading concept] into a rule of substantive law’ ” or “ ‘convert^] [it] into a rebuttable evidentiary presumption . . . .’ ” (Bains v. Moores , at p. 475.) Thus, the only question for purposes of our review is whether, accepting Hawran’s evidence as true and only looking to defendants’ evidence to assess whether it defeats Hawran’s as a matter of law, Hawran established his causes of action against the individual defendants have minimal merit. ( Soukup, supra, 39 Cal.4th a | 1 | 1 |
Matson v. Dvorakgreen2 sentences2012(Shively v. Bozanich (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1230, 1245 [ 7 Cal.Rptr.3d 576 , 80 P.3d 676 ]; see Overstock.com, Inc. v. Gradient Analytics, Inc. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 688, 712 [ 61 Cal.Rptr.3d 29 ] (Overstock.com, Inc.); Matson v. Dvorak (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 539, 549 [ 46 Cal.Rptr.2d 880 ] [“The general rule for defamation is that only one ‘who takes a responsible part in the publication is liable for the defamation.’ ”], quoting Osmond v. EWAP, Inc. (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 842, 852 [ 200 Cal.Rptr. 674 ]; Jones v. Calder (1982) 138 Cal.App.3d 128, 134 [ 187 Cal.Rptr. 825 ].) The court in Overstock.c 2012(Shively v. Bozanich (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1230, 1245 [ 7 Cal.Rptr.3d 576 , 80 P.3d 676 ]; see Overstock.com, Inc. v. Gradient Analytics, Inc. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 688, 712 [ 61 Cal.Rptr.3d 29 ] (Overstock.com, Inc.); Matson v. Dvorak (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 539, 549 [ 46 Cal.Rptr.2d 880 ] [“The general rule for defamation is that only one ‘who takes a responsible part in the publication is liable for the defamation.’ ”], quoting Osmond v. EWAP, Inc. (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 842, 852 [ 200 Cal.Rptr. 674 ]; Jones v. Calder (1982) 138 Cal.App.3d 128, 134 [ 187 Cal.Rptr. 825 ].) The court in Overstock.c | 1 | 1 |
Taus v. Loftusgreen2 sentences2012(Taus v. Loftus (2007) 40 Cal.4th 683, 713-714 [ 54 Cal.Rptr.3d 775 , 151 P.3d 1185 ].) We decline to “ ‘transmut[e] [the pleading concept] into a rule of substantive law’ ” or “ ‘convert^] [it] into a rebuttable evidentiary presumption . . . .’ ” (Bains v. Moores , at p. 475.) Thus, the only question for purposes of our review is whether, accepting Hawran’s evidence as true and only looking to defendants’ evidence to assess whether it defeats Hawran’s as a matter of law, Hawran established his causes of action against the individual defendants have minimal merit. ( Soukup, supra, 39 Cal.4th a 2012(Taus v. Loftus (2007) 40 Cal.4th 683, 713-714 [ 54 Cal.Rptr.3d 775 , 151 P.3d 1185 ].) We decline to “ ‘transmut[e] [the pleading concept] into a rule of substantive law’ ” or “ ‘convert^] [it] into a rebuttable evidentiary presumption . . . .’ ” (Bains v. Moores , at p. 475.) Thus, the only question for purposes of our review is whether, accepting Hawran’s evidence as true and only looking to defendants’ evidence to assess whether it defeats Hawran’s as a matter of law, Hawran established his causes of action against the individual defendants have minimal merit. ( Soukup, supra, 39 Cal.4th a | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. American Standard, Inc.green2 sentences2009(See Johnson v. American Standard, Inc. (2008) 43 Cal.4th 56, 69 [ 74 Cal.Rptr.3d 108 , 179 P.3d 905 ].) As noted above, there is no California authority applying the doctrine in the summary judgment context, and plaintiffs do not cite any federal appellate authority holding that the group pleading doctrine may serve as the basis for defeating a motion for summary judgment in cases involving federal law. 2009(See Johnson v. American Standard, Inc. (2008) 43 Cal.4th 56, 69 [ 74 Cal.Rptr.3d 108 , 179 P.3d 905 ].) As noted above, there is no California authority applying the doctrine in the summary judgment context, and plaintiffs do not cite any federal appellate authority holding that the group pleading doctrine may serve as the basis for defeating a motion for summary judgment in cases involving federal law. | 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. Kongs
green
1 sentence2020(See People v. Kongs (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 1741, 1750 ; People v. LaFontaine (1978) 79 Cal.App.3d 176, 179-180 [predecessor to Penal Code 5 section 647.6].) 5 A conviction for violating Penal Code section 647.6 would have created a rebuttable evidentiary presumption under Welfare and Institutions Code section 355.1, subdivision (d), that Mia and Emma were at substantial risk of abuse. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Evartt v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence2013(Evartt v. Superior Court (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 795, 801 .) Filing a proof of service according to statutory requirements creates a rebuttable evidentiary presumption that the service was proper, “but it may be impeached and the lack of proper service shown by contradictory evidence.” (Dill v. Berquist Construction Co. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1447 .) Although Baugher filed such a proof of substitute service on February 25, 2010, the declaration filed by Harris's attorney on August 27, 2012 demonstrated that Baugher was advised at the time of the 2010 substitute service that Harris was not e | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Dill v. Berquist Construction Co.
green
1 sentence2013(Evartt v. Superior Court (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 795, 801 .) Filing a proof of service according to statutory requirements creates a rebuttable evidentiary presumption that the service was proper, “but it may be impeached and the lack of proper service shown by contradictory evidence.” (Dill v. Berquist Construction Co. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1447 .) Although Baugher filed such a proof of substitute service on February 25, 2010, the declaration filed by Harris's attorney on August 27, 2012 demonstrated that Baugher was advised at the time of the 2010 substitute service that Harris was not e | 1 | 2013–2013 |
In Re Silicon Graphics, Inc. Securities Litigation
green
2 sentences2009Law. 991, 1028 & fns. 118, 119 [“Some decisions, however, either misunderstand the ‘group pleading’ concept or wrongly expand upon it, (i) by apparently transmuting it into a rule of substantive law applicable on summary judgment motions [citing Golden, supra, 1996 WL 426760 ]; (ii) [or] by converting this pleading presumption into a rebuttable evidentiary presumption . . . [citing In re Silicon Graphics, supra, 970 F.Supp. 746 ] . . . .” (fns. omitted)].) *476 Neither Golden nor In re Silicon Graphics constitutes binding precedent on the issue whether the group pleading doctrine applies in th 2009Law. 991, 1028 & fns. 118, 119 [“Some decisions, however, either misunderstand the ‘group pleading’ concept or wrongly expand upon it, (i) by apparently transmuting it into a rule of substantive law applicable on summary judgment motions [citing Golden, supra, 1996 WL 426760 ]; (ii) [or] by converting this pleading presumption into a rebuttable evidentiary presumption . . . [citing In re Silicon Graphics, supra, 970 F.Supp. 746 ] . . . .” (fns. omitted)].) *476 Neither Golden nor In re Silicon Graphics constitutes binding precedent on the issue whether the group pleading doctrine applies in th | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Heppler v. J.M. Peters Co.
green
1 sentence2002Peters Co., supra, 73 Cal.App.4th at p. 1275 .) The appellate court found no error, noting: “It appears what plaintiffs in fact wanted was an instruction that they were entitled to a rebuttable presumption that nonsettling subcon tractors—not Peters—were liable for the amounts Peters paid to settle the claims. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Isaacson v. California Insurance Guarantee Ass'n
green
2 sentences2002Guarantee Assn. (1988) 44 Cal.3d 775 [ 244 Cal.Rptr. 655 , 750 P.2d 297 ], the Supreme Court acknowledged the rule that where an insurer breaches a contractual duty to defend and the insured settles the underlying lawsuit on its own behalf, a rebuttable evidentiary presumption arises: “In a later action against the insurer for reimbursement based on a breach of its contractual duty to defend the action, a reasonable settlement made by the insured to terminate the underlying claim against him may be used as presumptive evidence of the insured’s liability on the underlying claim, and the amount 2002Guarantee Assn. (1988) 44 Cal.3d 775 [ 244 Cal.Rptr. 655 , 750 P.2d 297 ], the Supreme Court acknowledged the rule that where an insurer breaches a contractual duty to defend and the insured settles the underlying lawsuit on its own behalf, a rebuttable evidentiary presumption arises: “In a later action against the insurer for reimbursement based on a breach of its contractual duty to defend the action, a reasonable settlement made by the insured to terminate the underlying claim against him may be used as presumptive evidence of the insured’s liability on the underlying claim, and the amount | 1 | 2002–2002 |
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.