Rose v. State of California

Supreme Court of California · Decided 1942-03-04

Cited by 381 later decision(s) in our corpus · see the citation network in Lexace

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

From the opinion

GIBSON, C. J., Dissenting. — I dissent. The judgment in this case awards damages based upon non-compensable elements of injury and it should therefore be reversed for a new trial. The principles of law upon which the court is in agreement may be stated as follows: 1. Article I, section 14, of the California Constitution is self-executing, and a cause of action may be stated under it without tâ€Ĥ

Read the full opinion (source) ↗


Lexace provides legal information, not legal advice, and no attorney–client relationship is created. Citation figures are counts of later citing opinions in our corpus and may be incomplete; always read and Shepardize the full opinion before relying on it.