Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Torts (3)
- Abortion (2)
- Access to justice (2)
- Fraud (2)
- Harmonization of laws (2)
-
- Judicial review (2)
- Justice Jesse Carter (2)
- Libel and slander (2)
- Negligence (2)
- Ninth Circuit Survey (2)
- Proportionality (2)
- Punitive damages (2)
- United States (2)
- Aboriginal rights (1)
- Abuse of discretion (1)
- Abuse of process (1)
- Administration of justice (1)
- Adoptees (1)
- Adoption (1)
- Advertising law (1)
- Ag-gag laws (1)
- Alaska (1)
- Amendment of complaint (1)
- Animal experimentation (1)
- Animal law (1)
- Auto insurance (1)
- Birth defects (1)
- Boy Scouts of America (1)
- Burden of proof (1)
- California (1)
- Publication Year
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 61 - 75 of 75
Full-Text Articles in Law
Guardianship Of Kawakita [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Guardianship Of Kawakita [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
An appeal of a trial court's refusal to annul the appointment of a guardian was improperly brought because the refusal was not an appealable order under the California Probate Code.
Wilson V. Sharp [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Wilson V. Sharp [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
A taxpayer's cause of action was properly stricken for failure to state a claim when it named a county counsel and the county counsel had immunity from suit because his actions in deciding not to file an action to recover a salary were discretionary.
Fraenkel V. Bank Of America Nat'l Trust & Sav. Asso. [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Fraenkel V. Bank Of America Nat'l Trust & Sav. Asso. [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
It was an abuse of discretion for the trial court to deny the contractor leave to amend his complaint because the complaint was susceptible of amendment to set forth the factors necessary to show that contractor was not required to have a license.
In Re Los Angeles County Pioneer Soc. [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
In Re Los Angeles County Pioneer Soc. [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Los Angeles County Pioneer Society and Harry Lelande, a member thereof, appeal separately from an order appointing the Historical Society of Southern California trustee of all property in the possession of Pioneer. The order was entered after the trial court determined that Pioneer held its property for charitable purposes, that Pioneer had repudiated its trust, and that appointment of Historical as trustee. was necessary to carry out the purposes of the trust. We have concluded that the order is amply supported by the evidence and must be affirmed.
Parker V. Bowron [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Parker V. Bowron [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Individual's writ of mandate was properly dismissed because it was apparent that he and the others noted in the caption and complaint had no direct interest in the action and that no benefit could have accrued to them from its performance.
May V. Board Of Directors, Jesse W. Carter
May V. Board Of Directors, Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
The owner of bonds issued by an irrigation district was not entitled to relief in aid of writ of mandamus, compelling the district board of directors to comply with a previous writ ordering the board to levy an assessment on lands to pay her bonds.
Providence Baptist Church V. Superior Court Of San Francisco, Jesse W. Carter
Providence Baptist Church V. Superior Court Of San Francisco, Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Nonprofit church corporation and pastors' petition for prohibition against court was denied because the court was entitled to determine whether the church properly terminated the pastor based on a director of corporation analogy.
Aetna Bldg. Maintenance Co. V. West [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Aetna Bldg. Maintenance Co. V. West [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Where respondent alleged damages as a result of appellant's unfair competition when appellant solicited respondent's customers, acceptance by appellant of respondent's former customers did not in itself constitute solicitation.
Southwestern Inv. Corp. V. Los Angeles [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Southwestern Inv. Corp. V. Los Angeles [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
A motion to recall the remittitur was not justified as an opportunity for the parties to relitigate their cause nor for the appellate court to redetermine the merits.
Gill V. Curtis Publishing Co., Jesse W. Carter
Gill V. Curtis Publishing Co., Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Defendants, publishing and circulation companies, were not entitled to judgment on pleadings because complaint stated cause of action for violation of privacy rights where published article and likeness were susceptible of plaintiffs' construction.
Estate Of Harootenian [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Estate Of Harootenian [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
A judgment lien creditor, who had perfected a lien at the time the property would devolve to the heir if the will would be set aside, was an interested person entitled to intervene and contest the will.
Reitano V. Yankwich, Jesse W. Carter
Reitano V. Yankwich, Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Because a judgment debtor satisfied the judgment under the threat of execution by the judgment creditor, the payment was compulsory and did not waive the judgment debtor's right to appeal.
King V. Mortimer [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
King V. Mortimer [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Certificate holders could not recover the difference between the price at which their assignors sold their certificates and the face amount thereof because they failed to show there was any matured claim or debt due at the time they sold them.
Simone V. Sabo [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Simone V. Sabo [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
In a patient's malpractice action against his dentist, there was no expert witness testimony that the dentist rendered improper treatment when he removed the patient's impacted tooth and bruised or severed the mandibular nerve.
Parker V. Womack [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Parker V. Womack [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
The order of a new trial in the injured party's action against the driver was improper because there was no basis for the exercise of discretion when a correct instruction for unavoidable accident was given.