Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Rowland v. Christian, 69 Cal. 2d 108 (1968), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of California. It eliminated the categories of invitee, licensee, and trespasser to determine the duty of care owed by a possessor of land to the people on the land. It replaced the classifications with a general duty of care.
The act provides immunity to the State of California and its related entities from being sued. The law immunizes public employees from liability for “instituting or prosecuting any judicial or administrative proceeding” within the scope of their employment, “even if” the employees act “maliciously and without probable cause.” (Cal. Gov. Code, § 821.6)
Dereliction of duty is a specific offense under United States Code Title 10, Section 892, Article 92 and applies to all branches of the US military. A service member who is derelict has willfully refused to perform his duties (or follow a given order) or has incapacitated himself in such a way that he cannot perform his duties.
A real estate license must be obtained from the DRE in order to engage in the real estate business and to act in the capacity of a real estate broker or salesperson within the State of California. Before applying for a license, all education and experience requirements mandated by the Department must be fulfilled. [ 5 ]
Under this formula, duty changes as circumstances change—if the cost of prevention increases, then the duty to prevent decreases; if the likelihood of damage or the severity of the potential damage increases, then duty to prevent increases. There are other ways of establishing breach, as well. United States v. Carroll Towing Co., 159 F.2d 169 ...
In addition to the official reporters, published California cases are also printed in two Thomson West unofficial reporters: the regional Pacific Reporter and the state-specific California Reporter (both now in their third series). All Supreme Court decisions are published, but less than 10% of Court of Appeal decisions are published.
The California Supreme Court, aware of the recent trend toward comparative rather than contributory negligence, took the opportunity to reconsider the state's tort law on the subject. The only unique feature of the case was its reasoning on Section 1714 of the Civil Code , which had been thought to codify the "all-or-nothing" approach to ...
A release from future negligence liability imposed as a condition for entry to a charitable hospital is invalid as a matter of public policy, under Cal. Civ Code §1668, which prohibits exempting a person from fraud, willful injury, or violation of law in contexts that affect the public interest. Court membership; Chief Justice: Phil S. Gibson