Case law

Fairview Valley Fire v. CA Dept. of Forestry

California Court of Appeal · Jan 30, 2015

The agreement also establishes the conditions of employment, the rate and method of payment, and equipment condition requirements." … This is clearly the language of an irrevocable offer or option, not a binding contract. (See Rest.2d Contracts, § 87, subd. (1)(a).)

People v. Superior Court (Perez)

38 Cal. App. 4th 347 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 15, 1995

The narrow issue presented in this mandamus proceeding is whether a trial court’s long-established statutory authority to declare an alternative felony, or “wobbler,” a misdemeanor under Penal Code 1 section 17, subdivision … And, nothing in the language or history of the three strikes legislation suggests the drafters contemplated abrogration of this well-established authority. (See People v.

People v. Washington

210 Cal. App. 4th 1042 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 31, 2012

On appeal, Washington contends the record of his prior Illinois conviction for aggravated battery does not establish he personally inflicted harm on the victim as required under section 1192.7, subdivision (c)(8). … The record of Washington’s prior conviction clearly reveals he was the direct cause of his victim’s injury.

Tatkin v. SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES CTY.

160 Cal. App. 2d 745 · California Court of Appeal · May 23, 1958

The difference between two such intentions is well established in trade competition. … The well-known case of Mogul Steamship Co. 2 establishes this distinctly.”

Schaffer v. City and County of San Francisco

168 Cal. App. 4th 992 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 26, 2008

In the final analysis, what is covered by the anti-SLAPP statute is clearly set forth in the plain unambiguous language of the statute itself, which we are called to interpret broadly. (§ 425.16, subd. (a).) … Nor does she challenge the trial court’s determination that she failed to establish a probability of success on the merits. 8 Schaffer fails to establish that the court erred in granting respondents’ motion to strike.

MacDonald v. State of California

230 Cal. App. 3d 319 · California Court of Appeal · May 20, 1991

Moreover, these public entities did not owe any duty to William based on a special relationship; thus, the immunity question is moot. (Davidson v. … The court further qualified its definition of “mandatory” in a key footnote: “[W]e do not hold that every statute which uses the word ‘shall’ is obligatory rather than permissive.

City of San Diego v. Shapiro

228 Cal. App. 4th 756 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 1, 2014

Thus, the Legislature established that, in certain situations, qualified electors means landowners. (See San Francisco v. Industrial Acc. Com.[, supra, 183 Cal. at p. 279].) … (See fn. 35 Propositions 13 and 218 had desired that only qualified property owners be permitted to vote on the imposition of special taxes, they were clearly aware of the text

People v. Moret

180 Cal. App. 4th 839 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 22, 2010

As has been pointed out, the Supreme Court's opinion in Mower "accurately describes the effect of [the CUA] as creating a form of qualified immunity for the possession of marijuana in compliance with its terms. … patients and their designated primary caregivers,' the Legislature established a voluntary program for the issuance of identification cards to such qualified patients. (§ 11362.71 et seq.)

Social Services Union v. City & County of San Francisco

234 Cal. App. 3d 1093 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 30, 1991

The civil service commission shall establish rules governing the size and composition of qualification appraisal board [sic\. … The official minutes of the Commission meeting itself are clearly a matter of which we can take judicial notice (Evid. Code, § 452; Agostini v.

People v. Denard

242 Cal. App. 4th 1012 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 3, 2015

Appellant thus contends that the probable cause affidavit was inadmissible hearsay outside of any exception which could not be used to establish that appellant’s conviction qualifies as a strike under California law. … The mere fact of the Florida manslaughter conviction in this case does not establish the conviction qualifies as a strike 22 because a violation of the Florida manslaughter

Devis v. Bank of America

77 Cal. Rptr. 2d 238 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 28, 1998

We identify the issues framed by the pleadings and determine whether the moving party has established facts sufficient to negate the claim. … complete with a deposition notice from the Bank to the LAPD custodian of records, and a custodian of records declaration. 4 Although the Bank’s legal arguments are stated as though the motion were a demurrer, the motion is clearly

Wiley v. Kern High School District CA5

California Court of Appeal · Nov 26, 2024

Finally, government employees are subject to qualified immunity under section 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at … Finally, Wiley’s claim fails because Whiting (and any other officer still implicated) is entitled to qualified immunity.

Truhitte v. French Hospital

128 Cal. App. 3d 332 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 29, 1982

Villa prepared the operating room for the surgery according to established hospital procedure. … Culp (1937) 24 Cal.App.2d 22, 28-31 [ 74 P.2d 283 ]), and many hospitals were protected from liability by charitable immunity.

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.

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.

Garretson v. Post

68 Cal. Rptr. 3d 230 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 20, 2007

Defendant argues her alleged activity qualifies as protected speech under subdivision (e)(1) and (2) of section 425.16. … In this case, defendant has failed to establish that she was engaged in constitutionally protected speech or petitioning activity.

Walter v. Adams

110 Cal. App. 2d 484 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 22, 1952

electors of the district at the first general state election held following the expiration of 90 days and qualify.” … In support thereof he argues that to grant the writ at this time would be to hold that eligibility must be established prior to the election—a conclusion contrary to the rule of this state.

Schaeffer v. Public Employees' Retirement System

202 Cal. App. 3d 609 · California Court of Appeal · May 31, 1988

Accordingly, in order for appellant to establish his entitlement to safety member status he must establish that his duties clearly came within the scope of active law enforcement and this burden cannot be met by evidence … Labor Code section 4850 applies to employees of a sheriff’s department except those whose duties do not clearly fall within the scope of active law enforcement.

People v. Sun

55 Cal. Rptr. 3d 696 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 7, 2007

We review rulings on motions brought under section 1538.5 by the standard established in People v. … To the contrary, we encourage it consistent with the law established for both those jurisdictions.

Abbey v. Board of Directors

58 Cal. App. 757 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 19, 1922

From a consideration of the whole act, it clearly appears that it was the intent to authorize provision for the election of directors at large in districts of three divisions as well as in those of five. … Clearly, under section 28 as so amended, the directors of a district of five divisions were required, upon presentation of the petition provided for, to order the election of directors at large.