Case law

Toeppe v. City of San Diego

California Court of Appeal · Jul 27, 2017

In determining that the path qualified as a trail under section 831.4, the appellate court observed that the path was "designed and used" to bring "a dog to an unleashed area of a dog park[.]" … This case does not establish that the City is liable for Toeppe's injuries.

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’ ”].)

Keyes v. Bowen

189 Cal. App. 4th 647 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 25, 2010

, then the Vice President-elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President-elect nor a Vice President-elect shall have qualified … Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one *661 Member of the House of Representatives before

Ronald F. v. State Department of Developmental Services

8 Cal. App. 5th 84 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 1, 2017

[T]he Lanterman Act and implementing regulations clearly defer to the expertise of the DDS and [regional center] professionals and their determination as to whether an individual is developmentally disabled. … Appellant has failed to establish that section 4512, subdivision (l) constitutes an intervening change in the law that would alter the prior determinations that he has no qualifying “developmental disability.” VI.

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.

Meddock v. County of Yolo CA3

220 Cal. App. 4th 170 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 10, 2013

Thus, we have pointed out that „courts should not casually decree governmental immunity . . .‟ [citation], and that „[u]nless the Legislature has clearly provided for immunity, the important societal goal of compensating … In another case emphasized by Meddock, one court, quoting Professor Arvo Van Alstyne, the lead drafter of the Government Claims Act, stated “to qualify public property as improved so as to take it outside the immunity statute

People v. Cook

136 Cal. App. 2d 442 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 21, 1955

But while the information alleged “on or about the 4th day of August, 1954,” the prosecutrix testified that the acts complained of occurred on one of the days her mother had gone to visit her grandmother which was established … “Due process of law is a summarized constitutional guarantee of respect for those personal immunities which . . . are ‘so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental’ ... or are ‘implicit

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.

Cambell Industries v. State Board of Equalization

167 Cal. App. 3d 863 · California Court of Appeal · May 3, 1985

Since the record establishes without contradiction that the ferry boats are primarily engaged in local or intrastate activities, we conclude summary judgment was proper. … Accordingly, Campbell has had the burden of showing that it clearly came within the terms of the statutory exemption from taxation. (Good Shepherd Lutheran Home v.

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.

Winbigler v. Shattuck

50 Cal. App. 562 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 23, 1920

Beam was appointed and qualified as executor of the last will and testament of D. Willard Beam, deceased. … Shattucb, who qualified as executor of his estate. Thereafter Otis A. Beam, in his capacity as executor of the estate of D.

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).)

Libertarian Party v. Fong Eu

83 Cal. App. 3d 470 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 31, 1978

Candidates who represent a qualified political party are not faced with such a difficult task. … Such an objective is clearly within the scope of the state’s duties and cannot be claimed to be per se a violation of equal protection or a denial of due process of the law. (Jenness v.

Bryson v. Luse

122 Cal. App. 192 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 28, 1932

fact qualified. … However, the rule is clearly stated in the Estate of Ross, 171 Cal. 64, at 66 [ 151 Pac. 1138, 1139 ], as follows: “The party calling a witness to give his opinion on value may qualify him by showing his familiarity with

Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board

27 Cal. Rptr. 3d 766 · California Court of Appeal · May 13, 2005

The statute clearly directs our review to the Department’s decision, not the Board’s. (Dept. of Alcoholic Beverage Control v. … Schieffelin clearly paid-for a contractual right to have the promotional materials bearing its product’s logo placed at the point of sale of its product, and such points of sale would necessarily be establishments that sold

Young v. State Board of Control

93 Cal. App. 3d 637 · California Court of Appeal · May 30, 1979

Where the administrative interpretation of a statute is clearly not erroneous, it must be accorded great respect by the courts and accordingly will be followed. … The argument presented on behalf of plaintiff would effectively deny recognition of those well-established rules of statutory interpretation.

Morales v. 22nd District Agricultural Ass'n

1 Cal. App. 5th 504 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 13, 2016

In such a multiunit operation some of the establishments may qualify for exemption, others may not." (Ibid.) … DAA assertedly qualifies as an establishment which is an amusement or recreational establishment. Plaintiffs dispute this. Plaintiffs also contend that the . . .