Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Negligence (2)
- Worker's compensation (2)
- Appeals bond (1)
- Breach of contract (1)
- Change of venue (1)
-
- Contracts (1)
- Contributory negligence, credibility, duty of care (1)
- Criminal confessions (1)
- Damages (1)
- Dissolution of partnership (1)
- Evidence, guilty knowledge (1)
- Evidence, voir dire, harmless error (1)
- Federal Employers' Liability Act (1)
- Former jeopardy, larceny (1)
- Franchises, flood control districts, eminent domain (1)
- Habeas corpus (1)
- Habeas corpus, probation (1)
- Habeas corpus, taxicab stands (1)
- Heirship proceedings (1)
- Homicide (1)
- Illegal abortion (1)
- Indemnity insurance (1)
- Independent contractors (1)
- Injuries caused by defects (1)
- Irrigation Districts, wrongful death (1)
- Liability of contractors (1)
- Limitation of actions (1)
- Loss of consortium (1)
- Lotteries, amendment to pleading (1)
- Manner and Cause of Death (1)
Articles 1 - 30 of 44
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
In Re Bandmann, Jesse W. Carter
In Re Bandmann, Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
An inmate's application for a writ of habeas corpus based upon an improper sentence being imposed was denied and the matter was remanded to the trial court for reconsideration of the sentence.
In Re Osslo [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
In Re Osslo [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Two probationers could reject probation that they did not assent to at trial after the final appeal was decided because they never manifested acceptance of the terms of the probation, especially a prohibition from holding union offices.
Stockton Theatres, Inc, V. Palermo, Jesse W. Carter
Stockton Theatres, Inc, V. Palermo, Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
A bond was necessary where evidence showed that a lessee moved his money out of state and placed it in his brother's name in order to "protect" it from attachment. The bond was to be allowed as a cost on appeal.
Los Angeles County Flood Control Dist. V. Southern California Edison Co. [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Los Angeles County Flood Control Dist. V. Southern California Edison Co. [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
By accepting a franchise right in public streets, a utility was subject to an implied obligation to relocate its facilities at its own expense when necessary to make way for the laying of storm drains by a flood control district.
People V. Berve, Jesse W. Carter
People V. Berve, Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Threats and coercion by others than police rendered a confession later obtained by the police inadmissible because the right to a fair trial extended beyond police activity.
Tupper V. Superior Court Of Marin County [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Tupper V. Superior Court Of Marin County [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Where an accused's commitment was not based entirely on incompetent evidence, a writ of prohibition did not lie to review of the ruling of the magistrate on a procedural matter.
Letter To Wallace Myers
The Jesse Carter Collection
Letter from Carter to Myers re. Myers' representation of Carter during the "Episode of Carter's Dam."
Address Delivered Before The Barristers Club Of San Francisco Entitled "What Is Wrong With The Supreme Court Of The United States?"
The Jesse Carter Collection
No abstract provided.
Laird V. T. W. Mather, Inc. [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Laird V. T. W. Mather, Inc. [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
In a personal injury action brought by a customer against a department store, the trial court committed reversible error by instructing the jury on the presumption of due care after the customer had testified as to her own acts and conduct.
M.C. Nelson, Et Al., V. C.H. Reisner, Jesse W. Carter
M.C. Nelson, Et Al., V. C.H. Reisner, Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Judgment in favor of lessee in lessors' breach of lease action was proper because it could not be said as a matter of law that there was no evidence that the lessee had used good and farmer-like methods in developing the leased property.
In Re Petersen [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
In Re Petersen [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Ordinances allowing a police chief to designate exclusive taxicab stands and prohibiting competing companies from standing therein, was a valid exercise of a municipality's police power and was not invalidly discriminatory.
San Francisco V. Ho Sing, Jesse W. Carter
San Francisco V. Ho Sing, Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Municipality had a right to recover indemnity from property owners for the amount it was compelled to pay a pedestrian for injuries received when she fell over a defective skylight in a sidewalk in front of the abutting property owners' premises.
People Ex Rel. Averna V. Palm Springs [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
People Ex Rel. Averna V. Palm Springs [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Judgment was entered in favor of a city in a quo warranto action challenging the annexation of uninhabited land because annexation was not unreasonable, and the permissible shape, character, and extent of the annexed land was a political question.
Guerrieri V. Severini, Jesse W. Carter
Guerrieri V. Severini, Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Where seller repudiated a contract for goods, buyer had the right to treat the declaration as a wrongful renunciation of the contract and obtain similar goods to fulfill the obligation, then seek damages from the seller for the increased cost.
California Gasoline Retailers V. Regal Petroleum Corp., Jesse W. Carter
California Gasoline Retailers V. Regal Petroleum Corp., Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Promotional give-away program was not a lottery for lack of consideration where tickets were widely distributed to customers and non-customers, and no product or ticket purchase was necessary.
Kollert V. Cundiff [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Kollert V. Cundiff [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
A jury instruction on contributory negligence with respect to an adult passenger was prejudicial where the jury might have believed that the driver's negligence was attributable to the adult riding in the car.
Address Delivered Before The National Conference Of Teamsters Lawyers Entitled "The American Labor Movement"
The Jesse Carter Collection
No abstract provided.
Address Delivered At The Testimonial Dinner In Honor Of Judge Stanley Mosk Entitled "The Administration Of Justice"
The Jesse Carter Collection
No abstract provided.
Deshotel V. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Deshotel V. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Where the legislature had not changed the common law rule that a wife could not recover for the loss of consortium resulting from her husband's negligent injury, the wife had no claim for such losses against those who caused her husband's injury.
Address Delivered At Town & Gown At The University Of Southern California Campus Entitled "A Great Supreme Court"
The Jesse Carter Collection
No abstract provided.
Gomez V. Superior Court Of Mendocino County, Jesse W. Carter
Gomez V. Superior Court Of Mendocino County, Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Where petitioners were charged with grand theft, but the jury found them guilty only of petty theft, which judgment was reversed on appeal, they could not later be retried for grand theft, because double jeopardy protections attached.
Alarid V. Vanier [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Alarid V. Vanier [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Although a driver rear-ended another car, there was sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that the driver took reasonable steps to maintain his brakes, and therefore the driver was able to overcome the statutory presumption of negligence.
Peiser V. Mettler, Jesse W. Carter
Peiser V. Mettler, Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
A change of venue was inappropriate because the lessor's suit was not local, the lessee was a proper and necessary party who resided in the county where the suit was filed, and the lease terms were unambiguous not requiring further evidence.
People V. Friend [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
People V. Friend [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
The comments of the judge were in keeping with the Constitution and the established limitations on his power, and there was no sound basis for concluding that the question of penalty was not fairly tried.
Volf V. Ocean Acci. & Guarantee Corp. [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Volf V. Ocean Acci. & Guarantee Corp. [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Insureds were not entitled to damages for cost of replacing defective stucco where they sought coverage excluded in policy; defective stucco in house they constructed and sold was property in their care, custody, or control.
Gonzales V. Industrial Acci. Com. [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Gonzales V. Industrial Acci. Com. [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
It was not error to rate a claimant's pre-existing deaf-muteness at half of the standard ratings for deafness and muteness caused by an industrial accident because the claimant had worked for many years with his condition.
People V. Wein [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
People V. Wein [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
The death penalty for the crime of kidnapping to commit robbery if the victim suffers bodily harm applied where the removal was between the rooms in a dwelling. It was the fact, not the distance, of forcible removal that constituted kidnapping.
Smith V. Bull, Jesse W. Carter
Smith V. Bull, Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
A partner that dissolved a partnership and took its goodwill, only customer, and employees with him to start a new business was liable to a deceased partner for half of the value of the goodwill because it continued to exist after the dissolution.
Address Delivered Before A Meeting Of The California Jury Commissioners Association Entitled "The American Jury System"
The Jesse Carter Collection
No abstract provided.
People V. Lyons [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
People V. Lyons [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Defendant's conviction of receiving stolen property was proper because evidence was sufficient to corroborate the testimony of accomplice witnesses where defendant was in possession of stolen property and gave evasive answers as to ownership.