Case law

Harris v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board

201 Cal. App. 2d 567 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 19, 1962

It was found by the department to qualify as a “bona fide club” within the meaning of the Constitution and section 23037. … It clearly demonstrates the intent of the Legislature to keep clubs separate and apart from “public eating places” and “public premises” to which on-sale general licenses may be issued.

NILES FREEMAN EQUIPMENT v. Joseph

74 Cal. Rptr. 3d 690 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 28, 2008

Moody as a qualifying disabled veteran for purposes of certification. Despite protestations to the contrary, Mr. … What the partners clearly created does not appear to be a partnership that would vest any degree of meaningful or qualifying control in Mr.

Silva v. Langford

California Court of Appeal · Jun 9, 2022

Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 189, 223 [“‘It must appear clearly and affirmatively that, upon the face of the complaint [and matters of which the court may properly take judicial notice], the right of … Thus, it was CHP’s burden in its demurrer to establish its affirmative defense of governmental immunity. (Heshejin v. Rostami, supra, 54 Cal.App.5th at p. 992; Ivanoff v.

Hernandez v. City of Pomona

51 Cal. Rptr. 3d 846 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 6, 2006

The court further found Sanchez was entitled to qualified immunity even if he had violated Hernandez's civil rights because he "reasonably could have believed his conduct was lawful under the circumstances." … from liability if their employees would be immune. [66] Nothing on the face of plaintiffs' complaint suggests the officers would be immune from liability under California law.

People v. Vinson

193 Cal. App. 4th 1190 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 28, 2011

Thus, provisions of a statute that have an ameliorative effect must be given retroactive effect, even where other provisions of the same statute clearly do not have such an effect. [Citations.]” … In light of Vinson’s concession that the section 667.5, subdivision (b) enhancements established two prior convictions and periods of incarceration and our conclusion that the attorneys’ stipulation at trial established a

American Assn. of Women v. Board of Trustees

31 Cal. App. 4th 702 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 17, 1995

by the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101, et seq.) from establishing domicile in the United States.” … That section clearly establishes the preclusionary standard as the domiciliary provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act ( 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq.).

Henley v. Philip Morris Inc.

113 Cal. Rptr. 2d 494 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 29, 2002

Rptr.2d 243 , 933 P.2d 507 ["when the Legislature clearly intends a statute to operate retrospectively, we are obliged to carry out that intent unless due process considerations prevent us"].) … to the immunity.

Wozniak v. YouTube, LLC

California Court of Appeal · Apr 2, 2024

A website may qualify as an information content provider and lose immunity under section 230 “by making a material contribution to creation or development” of illegal content. (Kimzey, supra, 836 F.3d at p. 1269.) … (Liapes, supra, 95 Cal.App.5th at p. 919 [to survive demurrer, plaintiff “ ‘must show the complaint alleges facts sufficient to establish every element of each cause of action’ ”].)

Earp v. Nobmann

122 Cal. App. 3d 270 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 30, 1981

Harbor argues that Earp did not establish that he was prejudiced due to the filing of the amendment. … It is thus now clearly established that under proper circumstances a plaintiff may recover for negligent interference with prospective economic advantage despite the absence of privity of contract with the defendant.

County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court

42 Cal. Rptr. 3d 390 · California Court of Appeal · May 1, 2006

DISCUSSION The County established that the documents at issue here met the criteria of sections 1157 and 1157.6. … proceeding the subject matter of which was reviewed at such meeting, or to any person requesting facility staff privileges.” 6 At oral argument, plaintiffs’ counsel for the first time asserted that the Committee does not qualify

Axline v. ST. JOHN'S HOSP. & HEALTH CEN.

74 Cal. Rptr. 2d 385 · California Court of Appeal · May 6, 1998

those provided in the statutory immunities. … Axline has the burden of showing that he was qualified. The procedures afforded also differ. Dr. Axline's position as an applicant differs from the position of the dentist in Nicholson who already was a staff member.

People v. Rodriguez

California Court of Appeal · Apr 7, 2025

Under section 1172.6, a person convicted of a qualifying offense under the former law may petition for resentencing if the person could no longer be convicted of that offense under amended section 188. … Our high court subsequently clarified that Coleman’s use immunity rule was “essential to California’s privilege against self- incrimination.” (Ramona R. v.

Nestande v. Watson

4 Cal. Rptr. 3d 18 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 14, 2003

The trial court’s judgment may not be disturbed unless the appellate court is convinced that it is clearly wrong and constitutes an abuse of discretion. (Family Planning Specialists Medical Group, Inc. v. … The board of supervisors’ political opposition to Measure W does not establish that “the county” was an opponent of Songstad in the litigation.

People v. Watson

113 Cal. App. 2d 799 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 23, 1952

There it was established that the witness was promised immunity on the express condition that he would give testimony which would result in the conviction of one jointly charged with him. … the case. ’ ’ Appellant singles the one sentence out of this instruction : “It is the law that the testimony of an accomplice ought to be viewed with distrust," and claims that it was error to give it since Augustine was clearly

City & County of San Francisco v. Regents of the University of California

11 Cal. App. 5th 1107 · California Court of Appeal · May 25, 2017

The “power to tax for local purposes clearly is one of the privileges accorded chartered cities by [the home-rule provision].” (Weekes v. … While the doctrine at issue here involves a type of governmental immunity, the law that governs in typical sovereign-immunity contexts is largely inapplicable.

Field v. Bowen

199 Cal. App. 4th 346 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 19, 2011

Interveners’ arguments are not “ ‘clearly inconsistent so that one necessarily excludes the other.’ ” (Jackson v. County of Los Angeles (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 171, 182 [ 70 Cal.Rptr.2d 96 ].) … Jenness upheld a Georgia law requiring that candidates who were not affiliated with established parties (those polling over 20 percent of the vote) qualify for the general election ballot by a nominating petition signed by

J. Paul Getty Museum v. County of Los Angeles

148 Cal. App. 3d 600 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 31, 1983

When the Getty Museum was first established it was housed in existing buildings on land owned by Mr. Getty. … A nonprofit entity may qualify for the free museum exemption or the welfare exemption or both.

Barajas v. Satvia L.A. County Water Dist.

California Court of Appeal · May 25, 2023

Montoya (1995) 10 Cal.4th 972, 976-980 (Caldwell) [establishing immunity for individual board members].) 7  2. … The court reasoned that plaintiffs’ motion was filed too late to qualify for relief as a statutory motion to vacate under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, and that “there [wa]s no basis” to exercise its inherent equitable

In Re Phelps

113 Cal. Rptr. 2d 217 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 30, 2001

The use of dashes to connect the words “one- to four-family dwelling units” clearly indicates that it is intended as a single phrase, or antecedent to the qualifying clause. … We also note that with this phrasing, there clearly are multiple antecedents. 5 Petitioner unsuccessfully sought habeas corpus from the superior court.

Interstate Fire & Cas. Ins. v. Calif. Ins. Guar.

125 Cal. App. 3d 904 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 23, 1981

The statute clearly establishes that CIGA funds may not be used to compensate for the wrongful acts of the insolvent insurer. (See § 1063.2, subd. (g), quoted above.) … The statute clearly *915 establishes that CIGA funds may not be used to compensate for the wrongful acts of the insolvent insurer. (Ins. Code, § 1063.2, subd. (g).)