Ads
related to: examples of norm breaching evidence in court california case lookupcourtrec.com has been visited by 100K+ users in the past month
legal.thomsonreuters.com has been visited by 10K+ users in the past month
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Yuba Power Products, Inc, was a California torts case in which the Supreme Court of California dealt with the torts regarding product liability and warranty breaches. The primary legal issue of the case was to determine whether a manufacturer is strictly liable in tort when an article he places on the market proves to have a defect that causes ...
Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that added behavior that "shocks the conscience" into tests of what violates due process clause of the 14th Amendment. [1] This balancing test is often criticized as having subsequently been used in a particularly subjective manner. [2] [3]
Decided November 17, 1948; Full case name: Charles A. Summers v. Howard W. Tice, et al. Citation(s) 33 Cal.2d 80 199 P.2d 1: Holding; When a plaintiff suffers a single indivisible injury, for which the negligence of each of several potential tortfeasors could have been a but-for cause, but only one of which could have actually been the cause, all the potential tortfeasors are jointly and ...
People v. Diaz, 51 Cal. 4th 84, 244 P.3d 501, 119 Cal. Rptr. 3d 105 (Cal. January 3, 2011) was a Supreme Court of California case, which held that police are not required to obtain a warrant to search information contained within a cell phone in a lawful arrest. [1]
People of California v. Hernandez, 61 Cal.2d 529 (1964), was a California Supreme Court case ruling that an "honest and reasonable" mistake as to the age of a female is a valid defense to a statutory rape charge. [1] The defendant was charged with violating California Penal Code section 261, subd. 1, statutory rape, a misdemeanor. He pleaded ...
The court asserted that mathematics, "...while assisting the trier of fact in the search of truth, must not cast a spell over him." [1] In particular, the court expressed its concern that complex mathematics would distract the jury from weighing the credibility of witnesses and the reasonableness of their doubts. The court also expressed ...
The California Constitution at the time said (in Article I § 13), "in any criminal case, whether the defendant testifies or not, his failure to explain or to deny by his testimony any evidence or facts in the case against him may be commented upon by the court and by counsel, and may be considered by the court or the jury."
California, 549 U.S. 270 (2007), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 6–3, that the sentencing standard set forward in Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) applies to California 's determinate sentencing law.