Court decisions.
With their context.
Explore the published opinions discussed in our guides. Each explanation links to the opinion and notes a limit on what it decides.
Li v. Yellow Cab Co.
A person can share fault and still have a negligence claim. Their share of blame can reduce the recovery.
Used in 7 guides ↗Supreme Court of California · 1968Rowland v. Christian
The court applied reasonable-care rules to unsafe property. A visitor’s label alone did not decide the owner’s duty.
Used in 5 guides ↗Supreme Court of California · 2001Ortega v. Kmart Corp.
A lack of reasonable inspections may help show that a store should have found a spill.
Used in 1 guides ↗Supreme Court of California · 2011Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc.
For the insured care at issue, a bill’s unpaid negotiated writeoff was not a loss the patient could recover.
Used in 6 guides ↗Supreme Court of California · 2011Cabral v. Ralphs Grocery Co.
The court rejected a broad no-duty rule for a truck stopped beside a freeway. Drivers still had to use ordinary care.
Used in 9 guides ↗Supreme Court of California · 2004State of California v. Superior Court (Bodde)
Before suing a public agency, a person may need to send it a formal claim. The court required the lawsuit to address that step or a valid excuse.
Used in 3 guides ↗Supreme Court of California · 2005Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc.
The court asked when a person had reason to suspect harm and a wrongful cause. That can affect when the time to sue starts.
Used in 3 guides ↗Supreme Court of California · 2006Priebe v. Nelson
The court barred the kennel worker’s claim under the dog-bite law in that setting. That claim involved a risk of caring for the dog.
Used in 1 guides ↗Supreme Court of California · 1991Mitchell v. Gonzales
The court favored a substantial-factor instruction for cause in fact over a confusing older instruction.
Used in 4 guides ↗California Court of Appeal · 1976Box v. California Date Growers Assn.
The court kept the police report and its diagram out of the crash trial. It applied rules about what proof the court could use.
Used in 1 guides ↗Supreme Court of California · 1958Alarid v. Vanier
A broken safety law could lead to a starting assumption of fault. The court said proof of a valid excuse could overcome it.
Used in 3 guides ↗Supreme Court of California · 1986Perez v. Van Groningen & Sons, Inc.
A worker could still be doing the employer’s work despite breaking a rule against giving a ride.
Used in 4 guides ↗Supreme Court of California · 1943Souza v. Corti
The car owner’s consent could matter even when a different person drove. The court applied the vehicle-owner law then in force.
Used in 1 guides ↗Supreme Court of California · 1978American Motorcycle Assn. v. Superior Court
The court let people who shared blame seek a fair split of the loss from one another.
Used in 1 guides ↗Supreme Court of California · 1992DaFonte v. Up-Right, Inc.
Each defendant’s share of noneconomic harm was tied to its share of fault. That type of harm includes pain.
Used in 1 guides ↗Supreme Court of California · 1998Cedars-Sinai Medical Center v. Superior Court
The court discussed evidence rules and case sanctions as responses to lost evidence in the setting before it.
Used in 2 guides ↗California Court of Appeal · 2007Fergus v. Songer
The fee contract lacked a term the law required. The court discussed what that meant for the lawyer’s fee.
Used in 2 guides ↗Supreme Court of California · 1976Murphy v. Allstate Ins. Co.
The insurer owed a duty about settlement to its own insured. The other side could not simply enforce that duty as their own.
Used in 1 guides ↗California Court of Appeal · 2004Brizuela v. Calfarm Ins. Co.
The policy required a sworn exam of the insured. The court allowed denial when the insured failed to attend.
Used in 1 guides ↗California Court of Appeal · 1992Winet v. Price
The court enforced the broad release at issue, including its express treatment of unknown claims.
Used in 2 guides ↗Supreme Court of California · 1995Waller v. Truck Ins. Exchange, Inc.
The court read the policy to decide if a loss might be covered. What the contract says matters.
Used in 5 guides ↗Supreme Court of California · 1972Capelouto v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals
Pain may be shown by more than a medical bill. The court allowed lay proof and, in some cases, inferences from the injury.
Used in 3 guides ↗Supreme Court of California · 1994College Hospital Inc. v. Superior Court
The court discussed when money can be awarded to punish bad acts. A careless mistake alone was not enough.
Used in 1 guides ↗Supreme Court of California · 2001Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.
The court explained when a judge can rule without a trial. The key is whether a real dispute over an important fact needs a trial.
Used in 1 guides ↗Supreme Court of California · 1992Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Macri
No insurance and too little insurance are different problems. The court held that some coverage rules differ too.
Used in 1 guides ↗Supreme Court of California · 2008Bouton v. USAA Casualty Ins. Co.
Some coverage questions belong in court. They differ from the fault and money issues a policy sends to arbitration.
Used in 1 guides ↗California Court of Appeal · 2004Pitzen v. Superior Court
One small-claims plaintiff tried to retry an issue they had clearly lost. The court did not allow that.
Used in 1 guides ↗California Court of Appeal · 2017Sanchez v. Kern Emergency Medical Transportation Corp.
The court recognized that wrongful conduct can worsen a health condition a person already had.
Used in 1 guides ↗California Court of Appeal · 2016Licudine v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center
Lost future earnings need proof of what the person likely could have earned. A hoped-for job is not enough by itself.
Used in 3 guides ↗California Court of Appeal · 2013Corenbaum v. Lampkin
The court rejected using full billed amounts from the care at issue as proof of other losses. The bills were subject to insurance discounts.
Used in 1 guides ↗California Court of Appeal · 2019Huckey v. City of Temecula
The court looked at the sidewalk defect and the whole setting. On those facts, it found the defect too minor to support the claim.
Used in 1 guides ↗California Court of Appeal · 1993Drake v. Dean
The court said dog-owner negligence has its own rules. It is not limited to proof that the dog had known dangerous traits.
Used in 1 guides ↗California Court of Appeal · 1992Davis v. Gaschler
The owners argued that the person accepted the risk. The court rejected that as a complete defense on the facts before it.
Used in 1 guides ↗Supreme Court of California · 2013Ceja v. Rudolph & Sletten, Inc.
A person’s honest belief in a marriage could matter to a wrongful-death claim. The court looked at that person’s actual belief.
Used in 1 guides ↗California Court of Appeal · 2006Quiroz v. Seventh Ave. Center
A family’s wrongful-death claim is not the same as the deceased person’s surviving claim. They concern different injuries.
Used in 1 guides ↗Supreme Court of California · 2017J.M. v. Huntington Beach Union High School District
A child missed the time to seek court relief after a late-claim request was denied. Being a child did not erase that separate deadline.
Used in 1 guides ↗Supreme Court of California · 2021Shalabi v. City of Fontana
The court examined how to count the filing period after a pause based on a person’s age ended.
Used in 1 guides ↗California Court of Appeal · 1965Inter-Insurance Exchange of Automobile Club v. Lopez
An unknown car hit another car and pushed it into the insured car. The court treated that chain of contact as physical contact.
Used in 1 guides ↗Supreme Court of California · 1999Hodges v. Superior Court
The court let a claim about a car’s unsafe design proceed despite the driver’s lack of insurance. The damage limit did not apply in that setting.
Used in 1 guides ↗California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Three · 1995Scruton v. Korean Air Lines Co.
The court explained why a child’s proposed settlement needs court approval. A guardian alone could not make the deal final.
Used in 1 guides ↗Supreme Court of California · 1974Rodriguez v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.
The court recognized a spouse’s claim for loss of companionship and other parts of married life after injury.
Used in 1 guides ↗Supreme Court of California · 1977Krouse v. Graham
The court distinguished loss of a loved one’s companionship from grief itself in a wrongful-death claim.
Used in 1 guides ↗