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 1992–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Koper v. K.W. (In re K.W.)green1 sentence2023(See Conservatorship of K.W. (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 1274, 1286 [expert’s testimony not based entirely on reports but also on his own experience, and expert testified “without any contradictory medical opinion, that K.W. met the criteria for grave disability . . . and was unable to care for himself”].) Dr. Weinstein also observed that D.B. did not have insight into his mental health condition because he told her he did not believe he had any “mental health diagnosis” and he was “in fact, God.” (D.B. said the same thing at the hearing, testifying he did not believe he had schizophrenia.) D.B. als | 1 | 1 |
Mgic Indemnity Corporation v. Home State Savings Associationgreen1 sentence1992Ass'n. (6th Cir. 1986) 797 F.2d 285, 288 [Savings association’s settlement of criminal charges, by agreeing to make restitution of certain fees in exchange for agreement not to criminally prosecute officers, is not claim for wrongful acts of officers. “[A] claim that a wrongful act has occurred is not the same thing as a claim for payment on account of a wrongful act.”]; Branning v. CNA Ins. | 1 | 1 |
Branning v. CNA Insurance Companiesgreen1 sentence1992Companies (W.D.Wn. 1989) 721 F.Supp. 1180, 1183 [FSLIC cease and desist order a potential claim].) In this case, plaintiffs contend that the Department issued and served an examination report and letter that constitutes a claim within the policy period. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Thing v. La Chusa
green
2 sentences2021We read the Thing requirement that a plaintiff be “present at the scene of the injury-producing event at the time it occurs and is then aware that it is causing injury to the victim” (Thing, supra, 48 Cal.3d at p. 669 ) in light of the court’s admonition that 9 Maxim argues the dictionary definition of “present” shows that a person must be physically present, but even the Merriam-Webster definition relied on by Maxim defines the adjective “present” to mean “being in view or at hand.” (See Merriam-Webster’s Online Dict. (2020) <https://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/present> [as of Dec. 22 2020We read the Thing requirement that a plaintiff be “present at the scene of the injury-producing event at the time it occurs and is then aware that it is causing injury to the victim” (Thing, supra, 48 Cal.3d at p. 669 ) in light of the court’s admonition that 9 Maxim argues the dictionary definition of “present” shows that a person must be physically present, but even the Merriam-Webster definition relied on by Maxim defines the adjective “present” to mean “being in view or at hand.” (See Merriam-Webster’s Online Dict. (2020) <https://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/present> [as of Dec. 22 | 2 | 2020–2021 |
People v. Mower
green
2 sentences2003To the contrary, the Mower court held that the defendant bore the burden of proving the defense provided by Penal Code section 11362.5, subdivision (d), covering possession or cultivation of marijuana for medical purposes. ( People v. Mower, supra, 28 Cal.4th at pp. 477-478, 122 Cal.Rptr.2d 326 , 49 P.3d 1067 .) The "rule of convenience and necessity" invoked in Mower supports Crosby's allocation of the burden of proof on withdrawal to the defendant, who is in the best position to establish the relevant facts. ( Ibid. ) The Mower court did observe that for most defenses, the defendant's burden 2003To the contrary, the Mower court held that the defendant bore the burden of proving the defense provided by Penal Code section 11362.5, subdivision (d), covering possession or cultivation of marijuana for medical purposes. ( People v. Mower, supra, 28 Cal.4th at pp. 477-478, 122 Cal.Rptr.2d 326 , 49 P.3d 1067 .) The "rule of convenience and necessity" invoked in Mower supports Crosby's allocation of the burden of proof on withdrawal to the defendant, who is in the best position to establish the relevant facts. ( Ibid. ) The Mower court did observe that for most defenses, the defendant's burden | 1 | 2003–2003 |
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.