Case law

Kerr v. Rose

216 Cal. App. 3d 1551 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 8, 1990

Thus, no statutes of limitation were missed, and Kerr has failed to establish any other prejudice. … Kerr has not in any way “established that there is a substantial probability” that he will prevail on this fraud claim.

People v. Green

1 Cal. App. 432 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 16, 1905

By finding the defendant guilty of simple assault, the verdict shows us that the jury saw fit to believe ■only that part of the story of prosecutrix that established an assault, and rejected everything that indicated an intent … It applies only to the higher crime charged in the information, and, as we have already seen, the defendant having been acquitted of that crime, the giving or refusing of it, or the qualifying of it by the court, worked no

AWI Builders v. Payne CA2/4

California Court of Appeal · Sep 25, 2024

The trial court rejected Nakagama’s assertions of absolute prosecutorial immunity, qualified immunity, and litigation privilege under Civil Code section 47, subdivision (b) (section 47). … Nakagama additionally argued that plaintiffs “cannot overcome” various forms of immunity and privilege, including absolute prosecutorial immunity, qualified immunity, and the section 47 litigation privilege.

Spaccia v. Superior Court

209 Cal. App. 4th 93 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 6, 2012

Third, Spaccia speculated that the district attorney would not offer Adams immunity, which would prevent him from exonerating her if he is not charged. … The indictment refers to a letter of agreement indicating that Adams qualified for a medical disability pension, and would file for such disability pension when he retired from the City.

Diamond National Corp. v. State Board of Equalization

49 Cal. App. 3d 778 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 24, 1975

However, the question presented by a claim of exemption under a federal statute granting immunity to national banks from state sales taxes goes beyond the mere claim of an automatic exemption for a federal agency. … The court below treated the question solely as a federal question, i.e., whether federal instrumentalities are immune from state taxation. 12 The trial court also erroneously relied on Panhandle Oil Co. v.

Brand v. Regents of the University of Cal.

72 Cal. Rptr. 3d 419 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 18, 2008

In what appears to be inexact drafting, the final sentence of the paragraph restates this concept in the negative and, perhaps inadvertently, drops the timeliness qualifier. … This is because there are clearly some allegations within the third cause of action for which, according to the judicially noticed documents, Brand did exhaust his administrative remedies when he included those allegations

Jernigan v. Ford Motor Co.

24 Cal. App. 4th 488 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 26, 1994

At the heart of this case, section 1794, subdivision (c) provides that: “If the buyer establishes that the failure to comply was willful, the judgment may include ... a civil penalty which shall not exceed two times the amount … section 1794, subdivision (d), which prohibits a buyer who brings an action against a new vehicle manufacturer from recovering civil penalties under both section 1794, subdivision (c) and section 1794, subdivision (e), clearly

Vichy Springs Resort, Inc. v. City of Ukiah

California Court of Appeal · Mar 29, 2024

Neither the City nor the Club has established that the Project did not require a discretionary use permit from the County, or that the City was bound by the County’s alleged misinterpretation of intergovernmental immunity … These facts, if alleged in an amended complaint, would not establish an actual controversy.

Francis v. County of Stanislaus

249 Cal. App. 2d 862 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 30, 1967

or class of citizens, be granted privileges or immunities which, upon the same terms, shall not be granted to all citizens.” … Statutes must be upheld unless their unconstitutionality clearly, positively and unmistakably appears. [Citations.] ’ And in Lelande v.

Bickford v. Lawson

27 Cal. App. 2d 416 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 2, 1938

Clearly Dr. … The rule is thoroughly established in California that to qualify a medical expert witness to testify to the negligent reduction and treatment of a fractured limb by another physician in a suit for malpractice it must first

REGENTS OF UNIV. OF CALIF. v. Superior Court

225 Cal. App. 3d 972 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 28, 1990

Consequently, under prior law, there was clearly no provision for an undocumented alien or an illegal alien to establish residence 2These mies are applicable to the University of California only to the extent adopted by the … The literal wording of the statute arguably permits the construction that they may qualify.

People v. Smith

176 Cal. App. 2d 688 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 28, 1959

Although it is not necessary that proof beyond a reasonable doubt be offered to establish the corpus delicti, prima facie proof thereof being sufficient (People v. … in any way restrict its absolute power to declare its final conclusion upon proper submission of the cause; nor will such an expression, casual or otherwise, furnish any basis for attack on a finding unless it be “made clearly

Am. Medical Response of Inland Empire v. County of San Bernardino

California Court of Appeal · Jan 5, 2026

The Proposal Review Committee (Committee) will evaluate all proposals based on the evaluation criteria score sheet as established in this RFP. … unless they acted pursuant to ‘ “clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed” ’ state policy.

Estate of Pittman

63 Cal. App. 4th 290 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 17, 1998

The exemption trust consisted of the “maximum pecuniary amount that can be allocated to a trust that does not, to any extent, qualify for the federal estate tax marital deduction, without producing any . . . federal estate … Kazian filed a complaint to establish community property alleging that all of the property in his wife’s estate, including property held in her sole name, was community property.

CHIATELLO v. City and County of San Francisco

189 Cal. App. 4th 472 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 21, 2010

There is no state statute immunizing a municipal payroll tax from challenge, so Daar is not dispositive. … As far as we can determine, that statute is unique in extending immunity to local taxing authorities. Every other statute extends immunity only to suits against the state or any administering state officer.

Hassan v. Mercy American River Hospital

118 Cal. Rptr. 2d 81 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 17, 2002

II Civil Code Section 43.8 Does Not Establish an Absolute Privilege The dispositive issue concerns the meaning of the privilege provided by section 43.8. … Relevance must be measured against the criteria established by section 43.8 for the privilege.

Jimenez v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

1 Cal. App. 4th 61 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 22, 1991

However, the Legislature has spoken clearly and unambiguously; disputes about the merits of this policy are decided by the Legislature, not the courts. … “It is an established canon of interpretation that statutes are not to be given a retrospective operation unless it is clearly made to appear that such was the legislative intent. [Citations.]”

Tomei v. Fairline Feeding Corp.

67 Cal. App. 3d 394 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 22, 1977

He was required to make a down payment of only a portion of the purchase price, the balance being financed through a local bank using a line of credit established by Fairline. … The language in sections 25110 and 25019 clearly does not limit the regulation of security sales to fraudulent transactions.

Cook v. Cook

177 Cal. App. 4th 1436 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 29, 2009

The settlors did not qualify the debts by stating that the trustee must offset only enforceable debts. … Thus the Trust and the amendment clearly manifest the settlors’ intent that unpaid loans to any child be considered an advancement of that child’s interest in the Trust.

Lichtman v. Siemens Industry Inc.

California Court of Appeal · Nov 2, 2017

The contract between defendant and the City was clearly intended to, and does, affect plaintiffs. … be liable in the absence of such immunity.”