5 California opinions name it 3 courts 1947–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hildebrand v. Department of Motor Vehiclesgreen1 sentence2019Inc. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 337, 342-343 [concluding that a statute creating an exception to the law against requiring personal information with a credit card purchase did not contain the alleged limitation]; Hildebrand v. Dept. of Motor Vehicles (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 1562, 1571 [concluding that a statute creating an exception to the hearsay rule did not contain the alleged limitation]; People v. Duz-Mor Diagnostic Laboratory, Inc. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 654, 666-668 [concluding that a statute creating an exception to the prohibition against compensation for referrals by health care providers | 1 | 1 |
People v. Duz-Mor Diagnostic Laboratory, Inc.green1 sentence2019Inc. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 337, 342-343 [concluding that a statute creating an exception to the law against requiring personal information with a credit card purchase did not contain the alleged limitation]; Hildebrand v. Dept. of Motor Vehicles (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 1562, 1571 [concluding that a statute creating an exception to the hearsay rule did not contain the alleged limitation]; People v. Duz-Mor Diagnostic Laboratory, Inc. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 654, 666-668 [concluding that a statute creating an exception to the prohibition against compensation for referrals by health care providers | 1 | 1 |
Flores v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc.green1 sentence2019Inc. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 337, 342-343 [concluding that a statute creating an exception to the law against requiring personal information with a credit card purchase did not contain the alleged limitation]; Hildebrand v. Dept. of Motor Vehicles (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 1562, 1571 [concluding that a statute creating an exception to the hearsay rule did not contain the alleged limitation]; People v. Duz-Mor Diagnostic Laboratory, Inc. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 654, 666-668 [concluding that a statute creating an exception to the prohibition against compensation for referrals by health care providers | 1 | 1 |
Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp.green1 sentence2014(See, e.g., Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp. (1991) 500 U.S. 20, 26 [“Although all statutory claims may not be appropriate for arbitration, ‘having made the bargain to arbitrate, the party should be held to it unless Congress itself has evinced an intention to preclude a waiver of judicial remedies for the statutory rights at issue’”]; Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc. (1985) 473 U.S. 614, 628 [“We must assume that if Congress 15 intended the substantive protection afforded by a given statute to include protection against waiver of the right to a judicial forum, t | 1 | 1 |
Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc.green1 sentence2014(See, e.g., Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp. (1991) 500 U.S. 20, 26 [“Although all statutory claims may not be appropriate for arbitration, ‘having made the bargain to arbitrate, the party should be held to it unless Congress itself has evinced an intention to preclude a waiver of judicial remedies for the statutory rights at issue’”]; Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc. (1985) 473 U.S. 614, 628 [“We must assume that if Congress 15 intended the substantive protection afforded by a given statute to include protection against waiver of the right to a judicial forum, t | 1 | 1 |
Bailey v. Alabamagreen2 sentences1948Bailey v. Alabama, 219 U.S. 219, 233 [ 31 S.Ct. 145 , 55 L.Ed. 191 ], et seq. 1948Bailey v. Alabama, 219 U.S. 219, 233 [ 31 S.Ct. 145 , 55 L.Ed. 191 ], et seq. | 1 | 1 |
Ferry v. Ramseygreen2 sentences1947(Citing eases, which involve rebuttable, not conclusive, presumptions.) If a legislative body is without power to enact as a rule of evidence a statute denying a litigant the right to prove the facts of his case, certainly the power cannot be made to emerge by putting the enactment in the guise of a rule of substantive law.” That the petitioner is mistaken in his belief that the foregoing statement expresses the view of the United States Supreme Court that presumptions of the character here involved are unconstitutional, is seen from the following quotation from Ferry v. Ramsey, 277 U.S. 88, 9 1947(Citing eases, which involve rebuttable, not conclusive, presumptions.) If a legislative body is without power to enact as a rule of evidence a statute denying a litigant the right to prove the facts of his case, certainly the power cannot be made to emerge by putting the enactment in the guise of a rule of substantive law.” That the petitioner is mistaken in his belief that the foregoing statement expresses the view of the United States Supreme Court that presumptions of the character here involved are unconstitutional, is seen from the following quotation from Ferry v. Ramsey, 277 U.S. 88, 9 | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Towery v. State
green
1 sentence2020(Towery v. State of California (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 226, 231-232 .) Section 820.2 does not create such an exception to the general rule of immunity. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Manley v. Georgia
green
2 sentences1947(Citing eases, which involve rebuttable, not conclusive, presumptions.) If a legislative body is without power to enact as a rule of evidence a statute denying a litigant the right to prove the facts of his case, certainly the power cannot be made to emerge by putting the enactment in the guise of a rule of substantive law.” That the petitioner is mistaken in his belief that the foregoing statement expresses the view of the United States Supreme Court that presumptions of the character here involved are unconstitutional, is seen from the following quotation from Ferry v. Ramsey, 277 U.S. 88, 9 1947(Citing eases, which involve rebuttable, not conclusive, presumptions.) If a legislative body is without power to enact as a rule of evidence a statute denying a litigant the right to prove the facts of his case, certainly the power cannot be made to emerge by putting the enactment in the guise of a rule of substantive law.” That the petitioner is mistaken in his belief that the foregoing statement expresses the view of the United States Supreme Court that presumptions of the character here involved are unconstitutional, is seen from the following quotation from Ferry v. Ramsey, 277 U.S. 88, 9 | 1 | 1947–1947 |
Tot v. United States
green
2 sentences1947(Citing eases, which involve rebuttable, not conclusive, presumptions.) If a legislative body is without power to enact as a rule of evidence a statute denying a litigant the right to prove the facts of his case, certainly the power cannot be made to emerge by putting the enactment in the guise of a rule of substantive law.” That the petitioner is mistaken in his belief that the foregoing statement expresses the view of the United States Supreme Court that presumptions of the character here involved are unconstitutional, is seen from the following quotation from Ferry v. Ramsey, 277 U.S. 88, 9 1947(Citing eases, which involve rebuttable, not conclusive, presumptions.) If a legislative body is without power to enact as a rule of evidence a statute denying a litigant the right to prove the facts of his case, certainly the power cannot be made to emerge by putting the enactment in the guise of a rule of substantive law.” That the petitioner is mistaken in his belief that the foregoing statement expresses the view of the United States Supreme Court that presumptions of the character here involved are unconstitutional, is seen from the following quotation from Ferry v. Ramsey, 277 U.S. 88, 9 | 1 | 1947–1947 |
City of New Port Richey v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland
green
2 sentences1947(Citing eases, which involve rebuttable, not conclusive, presumptions.) If a legislative body is without power to enact as a rule of evidence a statute denying a litigant the right to prove the facts of his case, certainly the power cannot be made to emerge by putting the enactment in the guise of a rule of substantive law.” That the petitioner is mistaken in his belief that the foregoing statement expresses the view of the United States Supreme Court that presumptions of the character here involved are unconstitutional, is seen from the following quotation from Ferry v. Ramsey, 277 U.S. 88, 9 1947(Citing eases, which involve rebuttable, not conclusive, presumptions.) If a legislative body is without power to enact as a rule of evidence a statute denying a litigant the right to prove the facts of his case, certainly the power cannot be made to emerge by putting the enactment in the guise of a rule of substantive law.” That the petitioner is mistaken in his belief that the foregoing statement expresses the view of the United States Supreme Court that presumptions of the character here involved are unconstitutional, is seen from the following quotation from Ferry v. Ramsey, 277 U.S. 88, 9 | 1 | 1947–1947 |
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.