Cheong v. Antablin
California Supreme Court
1Concurrence
WERDEGAR J., Concurring.
I have joined the majority opinion because I agree generally with its reasoning and concur in the result. The majority correctly observes in order to decide this case we “need not resolve” (maj. opn., ante, at p. 1071) whether or how Evidence Code section 669 (section 669) may affect a plaintiff’s burden of proof in tort litigation generally, or revisit the complex of related issues that led to our fragmented decision in Ford v. Gouin (1952) 3 Cal.4th 339 [11 Cal.Rptr.2d 30, 834 P.2d 724, 34 A.L.R.5th 769] (Ford). Nevertheless, Justice Chin writes separately,…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Knight v. JewettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1992
- Vesely v. SagerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
- Richards v. StanleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1954
- Satterlee v. Orange Glenn School DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1947
- Ford v. GouinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1992
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.