Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Torts (15)
- Labor and Employment Law (10)
- Criminal Procedure (7)
- Criminal Law (6)
- Estates and Trusts (6)
-
- Workers' Compensation Law (6)
- Civil Law (4)
- State and Local Government Law (4)
- Contracts (3)
- Intellectual Property Law (3)
- Legal Profession (3)
- Civil Procedure (2)
- Family Law (2)
- Taxation-State and Local (2)
- Animal Law (1)
- Commercial Law (1)
- First Amendment (1)
- Health Law and Policy (1)
- Property Law and Real Estate (1)
- Keyword
-
- Picketing (5)
- Attorney discipline (2)
- Evidence (2)
- Overtime pay (2)
- Abuse of discretion (1)
-
- Alimony (1)
- Amendment of complaint (1)
- Annexation Act of 1913 (1)
- Attorney's lien (1)
- Auto accident (1)
- Bond assessment (1)
- Boycott (1)
- California State Civil Service Act (1)
- Creditor and debtor (1)
- Demurer (1)
- Doctrine of last clear chance (1)
- Domestic abuse (1)
- Driving under the influence (1)
- Electroshock treatment (1)
- Fair trade laws (1)
- False arrest (1)
- False imprisonment (1)
- Habeas corpus (1)
- Injuries Caused by Defects (1)
- Insanity defense (1)
- Invasion of privacy (1)
- Judgment non obstante veredicto (1)
- Judgment notwithstanding the verdict (1)
- Jurisdictional Strike Act (1)
- Jurisdictional Strike Act of California (1)
Articles 31 - 60 of 66
Full-Text Articles in Law
Burtis V. Universal Pictures Co. [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Burtis V. Universal Pictures Co. [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Plaintiff failed to prove that defendants plagiarized plaintiff's story. Rather, defendants had merely incorporated similar story elements, and the two works would not be considered substantially similar by the average reasonable observer.
Kurlan V. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Kurlan V. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
An order sustaining demurrers in copyright action was reversed because a protectable interest could not be decided by demurrer, extrinsic evidence was vital for original and novel methods, and outside facts used to assess programs.
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.
Weiss V. State Board Of Equalization, Jesse W. Carter
Weiss V. State Board Of Equalization, Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
The California State Board of Equalization possessed the power to deny an off-sale liquor license to an applicant because the applicant's premises were in close proximity to a school.
Groves V. Los Angeles, Jesse W. Carter
Groves V. Los Angeles, Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Where state constitution provided for taxes on insurance companies that were in lieu of all other taxes, an ordinance was properly declared invalid where it imposed license tax on gross receipts of an insurance company's agent engaged in bail bonds.
People Ex Rel. Skelly V. Glendale [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
People Ex Rel. Skelly V. Glendale [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
The Annexation Act of 1913 required the city to publish notice of desired annexation at least once a week for four weeks. It did not require a minimum period of four weeks; thus, 26 days between first publication and the election was compliant.
Hawaiian Pineapple Co. V. Industrial Acci. Com. [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Hawaiian Pineapple Co. V. Industrial Acci. Com. [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
An award of accident commission was annulled because record was devoid of substantial evidence that employer intended to do harm, had actual knowledge of consequences of failure to provide adequate safety devices, or had knowing disregard for safety.
Daniels V. San Francisco [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Daniels V. San Francisco [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
A finding against a driver in her action for damages for injuries resulting from a collision of vehicles was proper where the driver was entitled to an instruction on the doctrine of last clear chance.
Saporito V. Purex Corp. [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Saporito V. Purex Corp. [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
The evidence supported the finding that a manufacturer was liable in negligence to party who was injured when a glass bottle of a bleaching solution prepared and bottled by the manufacturer burst in her hands.
Martin V. Henderson [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Martin V. Henderson [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Officers were not entitled to compensation for overtime worked prior to the enactment of the California State Civil Service Act provision for overtime compensation, but were entitled to compensation for overtime after the statute's effective date.
. Jarvis V. Henderson [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
. Jarvis V. Henderson [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Statutes authorizing the payment to civil service employees upon separation of accumulated overtime and payment for holiday work would not be applied retroactively; absent statutory authority, a highway patrol officer had no right to such payments.
Lowe V. State Bar Of California [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Lowe V. State Bar Of California [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
An attorney's discipline for failing to safeguard his client's trust fund account was reduced from disbarment to a suspension of two years because the punishment was not proportionate to the seriousness of the attorney's offense.
Farber V. Olkon [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Farber V. Olkon [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Where incompetent person was given electroshock treatment, health care workers were not liable in damages to incompetent person because they had not violated any law, and there was no basis under which to hold them liable.
Cal-Dak Co. V. Sav-On Drugs, Inc., Jesse W. Carter
Cal-Dak Co. V. Sav-On Drugs, Inc., Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
The denial of the manufacturer's application for a preliminary injunction was not proper because it was based solely on the finding that interstate commerce was involved and a change in the law provided that that was no longer the crucial issue.
Voeltz V. Bakery & Confectionery Workers International Union [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Voeltz V. Bakery & Confectionery Workers International Union [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Enjoining unions from interfering with an employer's business was proper when the employer's workers organized their own association and asked the unions to stop their activity.
Rubin V. American Sportsmen Television Equity Soc. [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Rubin V. American Sportsmen Television Equity Soc. [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Promoters were entitled to preliminary injunctions to prevent a corporation and individual wrestlers from picketing where the corporation was not a bona fide labor organization, and the individual wrestlers' labor activities were not protected.
Sommer V. Metal Trades Council [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Sommer V. Metal Trades Council [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Because federal law did not protect a union's picketing and a secondary boycott that it originated, a California trial court had the power under the Jurisdictional Strike Act of California to preliminarily enjoin the union's activities.
Isthmian S.S. Co. V. National Marine Engineers Beneficial Asso. [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Isthmian S.S. Co. V. National Marine Engineers Beneficial Asso. [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
A preliminary injunction enjoining picketing was proper where the case was not necessarily close on its facts when the evidence most favorable to the party granted the injunction was reviewed, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion.
Isthmian S.S. Co. V. National Marine Engineers Beneficial Asso. [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Isthmian S.S. Co. V. National Marine Engineers Beneficial Asso. [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
A preliminary injunction enjoining picketing was proper where the case was not necessarily close on its facts when the evidence most favorable to the party granted the injunction was reviewed, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion.
Smith V. Smith [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Smith V. Smith [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
In divorce proceedings, when a wife was awarded nominal alimony despite the waiver of support in the property agreement, the trial court in effect reserved jurisdiction to award substantial alimony if changed circumstances justified an award.
In Re Kelleher [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
In Re Kelleher [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
It was unlawful for two labor unions that were involved in a controversy as to which one should represent the employees to picket outside of the employer, so the picketers were lawfully arrested and their writs of habeas corpus were denied.
Seven Up Bottling Co. V. Grocery Drivers Union, Jesse W. Carter
Seven Up Bottling Co. V. Grocery Drivers Union, Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
California's Jurisdictional Strike Act, which banned interference with an employer and picketing when there was a dispute between two unions as to who should have bargaining rights, did not violate unions' free speech rights.
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.
Roth V. State Bar [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Roth V. State Bar [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
An attorney who had been disbarred for committing grand theft was denied readmission to the bar because he was not remorseful about a previous ethical violation and because he had misinformed one his witnesses about the grand theft conviction.
Simpson V. Los Angeles [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Simpson V. Los Angeles [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
A city, under its police power, could enact local measures that did not conflict with general statutes. An ordinance providing for the surrender of unclaimed animals to humane research facilities did not conflict with state laws.
Whalen V. Ruiz [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Whalen V. Ruiz [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
A judgment against a bus passenger injured when the bus ran off a faulty bridge was properly sustained where the bridge owner was not obligated by contract or law to make structural changes to the bridge.
Gill V. Hearst Pub. Co. [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Gill V. Hearst Pub. Co. [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Court reversed judgment that sustained defendant's demurrer without leave to amend complaint in action for damages for invasion of privacy because trial court abused its discretion when it failed to allow plaintiff's complaint to be amended.
Goodman V. Harris [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Goodman V. Harris [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Owner of premises leased for operation of a motel was not liable for injury or death of guests from fumes from heater installed by lessees, but not part of realty, in absence of any defect in leased premises which might have caused the injuries.
Sutter Basin Corp. V. Brown [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Sutter Basin Corp. V. Brown [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
County treasurer could not call bond assessment over and above amount needed to meet unpaid principal and interest. After bonds were issued there was no right to call the assessment except to meet unpaid installments of principal and interest.
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.