5 California opinions name it 1 courts 1963–2021 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Michael R. v. Jeffrey B.green2 sentences2021But if A alone made representations, the plaintiff can hold B and C liable with A only by alleging and proving that A acted pursuant to an agreement (conspiracy) with B and C to defraud.’ [Citation.]” (Kidron v. Movie Acquisition Corp. (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 1571, 1581 (Kidron).) “ ‘The sine qua non of a conspiratorial agreement is the knowledge on the part of the alleged conspirators of its unlawful objective and their intent to aid in achieving that objective.’ [Citations.]” (Kidron, supra, 40 Cal.App.4th at p. 1582 .) However, “[m]ere knowledge, acquiescence, or approval of an act, without c 1995“The sine qua non of a conspiratorial agreement is the knowledge on the part of the alleged conspirators of its unlawful objective and their intent to aid in achieving that objective.” (Schick v. Lerner (1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 1321, 1328 [ 238 Cal.Rptr. 902 ]; see also Michael R. v. Jeffrey B. (1984) 158 Cal.App.3d 1059, 1069 [ 205 Cal.Rptr. 312 ] [“[m]ere knowledge, acquiescence, or approval of an act, without cooperation or agreement to cooperate is insufficient to establish liability”].) “This rule derives from the principle that a person is generally under no duty to take affirmative action | 1 | 2 |
Kidron v. Movie Acquisition Corp.green2 sentences2021But if A alone made representations, the plaintiff can hold B and C liable with A only by alleging and proving that A acted pursuant to an agreement (conspiracy) with B and C to defraud.’ [Citation.]” (Kidron v. Movie Acquisition Corp. (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 1571, 1581 (Kidron).) “ ‘The sine qua non of a conspiratorial agreement is the knowledge on the part of the alleged conspirators of its unlawful objective and their intent to aid in achieving that objective.’ [Citations.]” (Kidron, supra, 40 Cal.App.4th at p. 1582 .) However, “[m]ere knowledge, acquiescence, or approval of an act, without c 2021But if A alone made representations, the plaintiff can hold B and C liable with A only by alleging and proving that A acted pursuant to an agreement (conspiracy) with B and C to defraud.’ [Citation.]” (Kidron v. Movie Acquisition Corp. (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 1571, 1581 (Kidron).) “ ‘The sine qua non of a conspiratorial agreement is the knowledge on the part of the alleged conspirators of its unlawful objective and their intent to aid in achieving that objective.’ [Citations.]” (Kidron, supra, 40 Cal.App.4th at p. 1582 .) However, “[m]ere knowledge, acquiescence, or approval of an act, without c | 1 | 2 |
Alvarado Community Hospital v. Superior Courtgreen1 sentence2021Co. (1971) 5 Cal.3d 698, 704 (Navrides); Price v. McConnell (1960) 184 Cal.App.2d 660, 665 (Price); see also Alvarado Community Hosp. v. Superior Court (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 476, 482 (Alvarado); Rest.3d, Agency, § 4.01, com. h.) This rule derives from the principle that a single or indivisible transaction must be completely affirmed; the principal may not ratify the beneficial parts and refuse to affirm the rest. | 1 | 1 |
Navrides v. Zurich Insurancegreen1 sentence2021Co. (1971) 5 Cal.3d 698, 704 (Navrides); Price v. McConnell (1960) 184 Cal.App.2d 660, 665 (Price); see also Alvarado Community Hosp. v. Superior Court (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 476, 482 (Alvarado); Rest.3d, Agency, § 4.01, com. h.) This rule derives from the principle that a single or indivisible transaction must be completely affirmed; the principal may not ratify the beneficial parts and refuse to affirm the rest. | 1 | 1 |
Price v. McConnellgreen1 sentence2021Co. (1971) 5 Cal.3d 698, 704 (Navrides); Price v. McConnell (1960) 184 Cal.App.2d 660, 665 (Price); see also Alvarado Community Hosp. v. Superior Court (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 476, 482 (Alvarado); Rest.3d, Agency, § 4.01, com. h.) This rule derives from the principle that a single or indivisible transaction must be completely affirmed; the principal may not ratify the beneficial parts and refuse to affirm the rest. | 1 | 1 |
Schick v. Lernergreen2 sentences1995“The sine qua non of a conspiratorial agreement is the knowledge on the part of the alleged conspirators of its unlawful objective and their intent to aid in achieving that objective.” (Schick v. Lerner (1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 1321, 1328 [ 238 Cal.Rptr. 902 ]; see also Michael R. v. Jeffrey B. (1984) 158 Cal.App.3d 1059, 1069 [ 205 Cal.Rptr. 312 ] [“[m]ere knowledge, acquiescence, or approval of an act, without cooperation or agreement to cooperate is insufficient to establish liability”].) “This rule derives from the principle that a person is generally under no duty to take affirmative action 1995“The sine qua non of a conspiratorial agreement is the knowledge on the part of the alleged conspirators of its unlawful objective and their intent to aid in achieving that objective.” (Schick v. Lerner (1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 1321, 1328 [ 238 Cal.Rptr. 902 ]; see also Michael R. v. Jeffrey B. (1984) 158 Cal.App.3d 1059, 1069 [ 205 Cal.Rptr. 312 ] [“[m]ere knowledge, acquiescence, or approval of an act, without cooperation or agreement to cooperate is insufficient to establish liability”].) “This rule derives from the principle that a person is generally under no duty to take affirmative action | 1 | 1 |
Wyatt v. Union Mortgage Co.green1 sentence1995“The sine qua non of a conspiratorial agreement is the knowledge on the part of the alleged conspirators of its unlawful objective and their intent to aid in achieving that objective.” (Schick v. Lerner (1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 1321, 1328 [ 238 Cal.Rptr. 902 ]; see also Michael R. v. Jeffrey B. (1984) 158 Cal.App.3d 1059, 1069 [ 205 Cal.Rptr. 312 ] [“[m]ere knowledge, acquiescence, or approval of an act, without cooperation or agreement to cooperate is insufficient to establish liability”].) “This rule derives from the principle that a person is generally under no duty to take affirmative action | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
May v. Santa Fe Trail Transportation Co.
green
2 sentences1963Co., supra, 189 Kan. 419 [ 370 P.2d 390, 395 ].) This rule derives from the principle that ordinarily corporate agents and employees acting for and on behalf of the corporation cannot be held liable for inducing a breach of the corporation’s con *73 tract since being in a confidential relationship to the corporation their action in this respect is privileged. 1963Co., supra, 189 Kan. 419 [ 370 P.2d 390, 395 ].) This rule derives from the principle that ordinarily corporate agents and employees acting for and on behalf of the corporation cannot be held liable for inducing a breach of the corporation’s con *73 tract since being in a confidential relationship to the corporation their action in this respect is privileged. | 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.