remoteness doctrine in California

2021Remoteness is a mitigating factor where it “carries the connotation of a crime-free cleansing period of rehabilitation after a defendant has had the opportunity to reflect upon the error of his or her ways.” (People v. Humphrey (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 809, 813 ; see People v. Gaston (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 310, 321 [leading a crime-free life between the strike priors and current crimes “would give significance to the remoteness in time of those strikes”].) As he acknowledges, Yacoub’s priors were not remote when he committed the current offenses.

2021In People v. Harris (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 727 , the court found a gap of 23 years to be “a long time” and therefore to weigh in favor of exclusion.

2003There, numerous "multi-employer labor management health and welfare funds," which paid medical bills for union workers, filed a RICO action against "the major cigarette manufacturers" alleging a conspiracy to suppress information regarding the effects of smoking and claiming damage "in the form of . . . payment of unnecessary medical costs to [fund] beneficiaries." ( Id at p. 1197.) Applying Holmes , the court held that "the `remoteness doctrine' " barred the claim because "the Funds themselves ha[d] suffered no direct injury." ( Hawaii Health & Welfare Trust Fund for Operating Engineers, supr

2003There, numerous "multi-employer labor management health and welfare funds," which paid medical bills for union workers, filed a RICO action against "the major cigarette manufacturers" alleging a conspiracy to suppress information regarding the effects of smoking and claiming damage "in the form of . . . payment of unnecessary medical costs to [fund] beneficiaries." ( Id at p. 1197.) Applying Holmes , the court held that "the `remoteness doctrine' " barred the claim because "the Funds themselves ha[d] suffered no direct injury." ( Hawaii Health & Welfare Trust Fund for Operating Engineers, supr

2003There, numerous “multiemployer labor management health and welfare funds,” which paid medical bills for union workers, filed a RICO action against “the major cigarette manufacturers” alleging a conspiracy to suppress information regarding the effects of smoking and claiming damage “in the form of . . . payment of unnecessary medical costs to [fund] beneficiaries.” (Id. at p. 1197.) Applying Holmes , the court held that “the ‘remoteness doctrine’ ” barred the claim because “the Funds themselves ha[d] suffered no direct injury.” (Hawaii Health & Welfare Trust Fund for Operating Engineers, supra,

2003There, numerous "multi-employer labor management health and welfare funds," which paid medical bills for union workers, filed a RICO action against "the major cigarette manufacturers" alleging a conspiracy to suppress information regarding the effects of smoking and claiming damage "in the form of . . . payment of unnecessary medical costs to [fund] beneficiaries." ( Id at p. 1197.) Applying Holmes , the court held that "the `remoteness doctrine' " barred the claim because "the Funds themselves ha[d] suffered no direct injury." ( Hawaii Health & Welfare Trust Fund for Operating Engineers, supr

2002Reynolds Tobacco Co. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 503 , 96 Cal.Rptr.2d 666 (S090420, review granted Oct. 18, 2000). [25] In overruling Defendants' demurrer to the Cotchett-represented plaintiffs' intentional fraud claims, the superior court stated the remoteness doctrine was inapplicable to those claims.

2002Reynolds Tobacco Co. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 503 , 96 Cal.Rptr.2d 666 (S090420, review granted Oct. 18, 2000). [25] In overruling Defendants' demurrer to the Cotchett-represented plaintiffs' intentional fraud claims, the superior court stated the remoteness doctrine was inapplicable to those claims.

2002Bank v. Macker (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 1528, 1531 , 57 Cal.Rptr.2d 418 . [16] ) *131 In essence, the remoteness doctrine directs courts in negligence cases to cut off liability to plaintiffs other than the direct victim because negligently caused harm is not intended.

2002Bank v. Macker (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 1528, 1531 , 57 Cal.Rptr.2d 418 . [16] ) *131 In essence, the remoteness doctrine directs courts in negligence cases to cut off liability to plaintiffs other than the direct victim because negligently caused harm is not intended.

2002In that vein, in Evan F. v. Hughson United Methodist Church, supra, 8 Cal.App.4th 828 , 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 748 , the appellate court observed: "Proximate cause"—in itself an unfortunate term—is merely the limitation which the courts have placed upon the actor's responsibility for the consequences of the actor's conduct.

2002In that vein, in Evan F. v. Hughson United Methodist Church, supra, 8 Cal.App.4th 828 , 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 748 , the appellate court observed: "Proximate cause"—in itself an unfortunate term—is merely the limitation which the courts have placed upon the actor's responsibility for the consequences of the actor's conduct.

2002Weinrot & Son, Inc. v. Jackson, supra, 40 Cal.3d at pp. 340-341 & fn. 9, 220 Cal.Rptr. 103 , 708 P.2d 682 ; Fifield Manor v. Finston, supra, 54 Cal.2d at p. 636 , 7 Cal.Rptr. 377 , 354 P.2d 1073 ; Herrick v. Superior Court, supra, 188 Cal.App.3d at p. 791 , 233 Cal.Rptr. 675 .) [15] "What distinguishes actionable fraudulent deceit is the element of knowing intent to induce someone's action to his or her detriment with false representations of fact.

2002Weinrot & Son, Inc. v. Jackson, supra, 40 Cal.3d at pp. 340-341 & fn. 9, 220 Cal.Rptr. 103 , 708 P.2d 682 ; Fifield Manor v. Finston, supra, 54 Cal.2d at p. 636 , 7 Cal.Rptr. 377 , 354 P.2d 1073 ; Herrick v. Superior Court, supra, 188 Cal.App.3d at p. 791 , 233 Cal.Rptr. 675 .) [15] "What distinguishes actionable fraudulent deceit is the element of knowing intent to induce someone's action to his or her detriment with false representations of fact.

2002(See, e.g., Fifield Manor v. Finston (1960) 54 Cal.2d 632 , 7 Cal.Rptr. 377 , 354 P.2d 1073 ; [8] I.J.

2002(See, e.g., Fifield Manor v. Finston (1960) 54 Cal.2d 632 , 7 Cal.Rptr. 377 , 354 P.2d 1073 ; [8] I.J.