Case law

People v. Walther

27 Cal. App. 2d 583 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 15, 1938

The sixth count of the indictment clearly fails to state a public offense. … Webb, the coconspirator, on the ground that the fact of the existence of the alleged conspiracy had not been first established.

Stone v. State of California

106 Cal. App. 3d 924 · California Court of Appeal · May 23, 1980

Ferreira was the guest statute case which was so clearly overruled by Brown v. Merlo, supra , albeit sub silentio. … I therefore am of the opinion that Government Code section 845, purporting to create an immunity for public entities and public employees with respect to failure to establish a police department, or to provide police protection

Cal Fire Local 2881 v. California Public Employees' Retirement System

7 Cal. App. 5th 115 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 30, 2016

Thus, this airtime service 2 credit was unique in that it did not reflect the member’s actual service in qualifying employment. … Constitutional decisions “have never given a law which imposes unforeseen advantages or burdens on a contracting party constitutional immunity against change.” ’ [Citation.]”

Javor v. Taggart

120 Cal. Rptr. 2d 174 · California Court of Appeal · May 23, 2002

The court acknowledged the ‘publication was authorized as part of the statutory scheme and was clearly “within the scope of [defendant’s] employment,” within the meaning of section 821.6.’. . . … Defendants work within the administrative system established to implement the objectives of the Workers’ Compensation Act.

National Distillers Products Corp. v. City & County of San Francisco

141 Cal. App. 2d 651 · California Court of Appeal · May 21, 1956

Respondent is a Virginia corporation qualified and entitled to do business in the State of California. … The instant case seems to present a situation that is clearly within the rationale of the Gulf Oil case.

Tutor-Saliba Corp. v. Herrera

39 Cal. Rptr. 3d 21 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 10, 2006

(a) (official duty privilege), as well as under Government Code sections 821.6 and 820.2 (prosecutorial immunity and discretionary immunity, respectively). … (a)), as well as under the “prosecutorial” and “discretionary” immunities. (Gov. Code, §§ 821.6 & 820.2.)

Paramount General Hospital Co. v. National Medical Enterprises, Inc.

42 Cal. App. 3d 496 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 15, 1974

then carved out an exception, not justified by anything in the Act, under which it immunized the entire package because the services, clearly covered by the Act, were merely “ancillary” to the lease which it thought to be … The term “ordinary channels of trade” becomes relevant only in two situations: (1) To establish costs (§§ 17027, 17077); and, (2) To define certain irrelevant exclusions from the Act. (§ 17050, subds.

Donabedian v. Mercury Insurance

11 Cal. Rptr. 3d 45 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 30, 2004

And, as stated, Proposition 103 entitles qualified applicants to receive a Good Driver Discount (§§ 1861.02, subd. … Under a fair reading of the complaint, plaintiff alleged that Mercury used the lack of prior insurance to (1) deny the Good Driver Discount to qualified applicants, (2) charge applicants higher premiums, (3) declare some

State Compensation Insurance Fund v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

88 Cal. App. 3d 43 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 4, 1979

Jan. 1, 1975) to make vocational rehabilitation at the expense of employers or their carriers a matter of right for qualified injured workers. (Stats. 1974, ch. 1435, p. 3138.) … Vocational rehabilitation is clearly a remedial treatment to alleviate the effects of industrial injury and must be deemed an integral part of any complete workers’ compensation system.

Marylander v. Superior Court

97 Cal. Rptr. 2d 439 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 28, 2000

It concluded, “there is neither an absolute duty to disclose nor an absolute privilege to withhold, but instead a qualified privilege against compelled disclosure which depends on the facts of each particular case.” … Only if the public interest in nondisclosure clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure does the deliberative process privilege spring into existence” (California First Amendment Coalition v.

Taylor v. City of Los Angeles

29 Cal. App. 2d 181 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 15, 1938

On such premise it is argued that “this appeal, then, is concerned mainly with the question whether the city was engaged in a governmental function and immune from liability for the negligent acts of its servants in overseeing … It is sufficient to note that under the facts alleged as above quoted from plaintiffs’ complaint, the case comes squarely within the rule established in City of Los Angeles v. Industrial Acc.

Weaver v. Bishop

206 Cal. App. 3d 1351 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 29, 1988

Romley (1966) 64 Cal.2d 396, 408-409 [ 50 Cal.Rptr. 273 , 412 P.2d 529 ], where the Supreme Court qualified the erstwhile “civil law rule” applicable to surface waters. … Poché, J., and Perley, J., concurred. 1 This rule would seem squarely applicable to immunize defendants except for two points which are left factually, and perhaps legally, unclear: (1) the record does not clearly establish

Bullock v. City and County of San Francisco

221 Cal. App. 3d 1072 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 28, 1990

This can be seen most clearly by example. … Nor should anything in this opinion be construed to mean that the Ellis Act has in effect immunized plaintiff from otherwise valid provisions of the Conversion Ordinance and the ordinance establishing the North of Market

Chiaramonte v. County of Los Angeles CA2/7

California Court of Appeal · Sep 22, 2014

Chiaramonte also argued that the individual defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity because “the constitutional right to adequate medical care while incarcerated is clearly established,” and that the malpractice … ‘If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established,’ then the qualified immunity inquiry ends. [Citation.]

In Re Hernandez

49 Cal. Rptr. 3d 301 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 27, 2006

“The standards for ineffective assistance of counsel claims are well established. … To establish a meritorious claim of ineffective assistance, defendant ‘must establish either; (1) As a result of counsel’s performance, the prosecution’s case was not subjected to meaningful adversarial testing, in which

Ver Bryck v. Luby

67 Cal. App. 2d 842 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 7, 1945

*845 This question must likewise be answered in the negative and is governed by the established rule in California that a duly qualified expert witness may express through an answer to a hypothetical question an opinion upon … Parkin was a qualified psychiatrist. Thereafter the trial judge properly permitted Dr.

People v. Williams

97 Cal. App. 3d 382 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 28, 1979

Evidence adduced before the grand jury established that Wood sold the file or a photo-copy of the file to David H. Cheren and George S. Goldberg, who are attorneys. … The indictment under scrutiny clearly alleges that defendants conspired to conceal the stolen Hartford file and that such conspiracy continued until on or about February 4, 1975.

Granny Purps, Inc. v. County of Santa Cruz

California Court of Appeal · Aug 5, 2020

Local land use regulation is clearly allowed under the state marijuana laws, whereas other regulation of medical marijuana risks state preemption. … Possession of medical cannabis, by those qualified according to state law, is not a crime.

Furtado v. State Personnel Board

212 Cal. App. 4th 729 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 7, 2013

This finding is clearly supported by substantial evidence. … It is clear that an individual who brings a FEHA claim must establish that he or she is qualified for the position at issue.

Brockett v. Kitchen Boyd Motor Co.

24 Cal. App. 3d 87 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 16, 1972

As demonstrated, supra, this rule is patently unsound and totally inconsistent with the principles of proximate cause established in other areas of negligence law. … Clearly, the impeccable logic of Vesely impels the conclusion that any person, whether he is in the business of dispensing alcoholic beverages or not, who disregards the legislative mandate breaches a duty to anyone who is