Case law

Norton v. Lewis

34 Cal. App. 621 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 12, 1917

Petitioner claims that he is in office for a term beginning on the first Monday after the first day of January, 1917, and that therefore his salary, as established by law, is five thousand dollars per year. … relator, by reason of his failure to file his oath of office and official bond within ten days after receiving notice of his election, is not, by virtue of the election, entitled to the office. ’ “The cases in California too clearly

People v. Bunyard

9 Cal. App. 5th 1237 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 22, 2017

Any other entry into a commercial establishment with intent to commit larceny is burglary. … For example, to qualify for resentencing under the new shoplifting statute, the trial court must determine whether [the] defendant entered ‘a commercial establishment with intent to commit larceny while that establishment

Strongman v. County of Kern

255 Cal. App. 2d 308 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 23, 1967

But it is a fundamental principle of pleading that a complaint must clearly and distinctly state the ultimate facts relied on, so that the court may fully understand the issues, so that the defendant may be apprised of the … But this immunity is available to a public entity only if it is specifically pleaded as an affirmative defense. (Teall v. City of Cudahy, 60 Cal.2d 431, 435 [ 34 Cal.Rptr. 869 , 386 P.2d 493 ] ; Dahlquist v.

People v. Presley

172 Cal. App. 3d 1001 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 1, 1985

A person who uses PCP may thus appear to have “superhuman strength” because his or her body is immune to pain which would otherwise inhibit activities. … A comparison of the instant offense to other drug-related offenses for which probation is also prohibited fails to establish that appellant’s three-year state prison term was disproportionate to the crime.

People v. Stelling

131 Cal. App. 300 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 19, 1933

The first deals with the right of the citizens of each state to all of the privileges and immunities of the citizens in the several states and the other deals with the manner of amending the Constitution. … A reading of the statute under consideration clearly shows that it is not in contravention of either of said articles.

Swanson v. County of Riverside

California Court of Appeal · Jun 17, 2019

Rosario's declaration, she stated Brandon was assessed by qualified professionals who analyzed his medical, psychological, educational, social, financial, and legal conditions. … In Kibler, the Supreme Court concluded a hospital's peer review proceeding qualifies as an " 'official proceeding authorized by law' " under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, subdivision (e)(2).

Fogel v. Farmers Group, Inc.

74 Cal. Rptr. 3d 61 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 7, 2008

We need not resolve whether section 1860.1 applies to immunize only concerted action, because we find that Fogel’s claims are not within the scope of section 1860.1 immunity under the plain language of the statute. … Contrary to defendants’ assertions, the policy language does not clearly and unequivocally refer to the subscription agreement. It refers to a power of attorney.

Orange County Social Services Agency v. Joseph B.

99 Cal. App. 4th 11 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 6, 2002

There was no evidence the examining psychologist was clearly unqualified, as in Catherine S., but nothing showed she was qualified, as in Jennilee T. The record is a blank on that point. … It expressly ordered that qualified experts be appointed.

People v. Bryon S.

176 Cal. App. 3d 822 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 17, 1986

Chavez is clearly distinguishable on its facts. That case involved “exceptional circumstances” in which defense counsel acted as interpreter on several occasions but was sworn as an interpreter on only one occasion. … We are asked to take judicial notice of these minute orders to establish that other oral sign interpreters were available in addition to Ms. Ingram.

Knapp v. Palisades Charter High School

146 Cal. App. 4th 708 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 10, 2007

It held that Thomas Knapp’s correspondence with Hosford did not substantially fulfill the requirements of the TCA, because Knapp “never clearly indicated that legal action was a certainty.” … The court determined the charter schools did not qualify as “public entities” under the CFCA. ( 39 Cal.4th at p. 1203 .)

Eaker v. Bryant

24 Cal. App. 87 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 25, 1914

Because it grants to some classes of citizens special privileges and immunities which upon the same terms are not granted to other citizens (Const., art. I, sec. 21); and 3. … The business of pawnbroking is one well known to the law, and constitutes of itself a distinct class of persons and things which may be properly regulated by a law applying to them alone, as was clearly held in the decision

People v. Schmies

44 Cal. App. 4th 38 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 29, 1996

In general, “[p]roximate cause is clearly established where the act is directly connected with the resulting injury, with no intervening force *49 operating.” (1 Witkin & Epstein, Cal. … But such an officer is immune from liability for civil damages and, under some circumstances, his or her employer may also be immune. (Veh. Code, §§ 17004, 17004.7.)

California Physicians' Service v. Superior Court

9 Cal. App. 4th 1321 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 25, 1992

The filing of defensive pleadings is clearly a privileged communication which cannot be the basis for a retaliatory action in tort. The superior court was under an obligation to terminate this spurious cause of action. … (Op. cit. supra, at p. 447.) 6 The Legislature has apparently recognized the rule established by White , but has not attempted to modify its central principle.

People v. Gibson

108 Cal. Rptr. 2d 809 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 29, 2001

Rodriguez (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1 , 11 ), the evidence at trial established the following: Lianne "Lee" Doversola, testifying under a grant of immunity, first met appellant in July of 1997 concerning possible employment with … Pursuant to a grant of immunity, April White testified that she met appellant in May of 1998.

Bell v. Wells Fargo Bank

62 Cal. App. 4th 1382 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 9, 1998

The court determined that the California law of what is termed “judicial estoppel” will be invoked only in situations where the litigant has taken positions so clearly inconsistent that one necessarily excludes another. … This establishes that he was not, and cannot be, a qualified individual under the FEHA. . . . “2.

Cutler v. Franchise Tax Board

208 Cal. App. 4th 1247 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 28, 2012

to purchase stock in another qualified small business. … The Board also asserts that plaintiff is not entitled to a refund because he has not yet established that his sales and purchases met the statutory requirements for qualified small business stock under provisions other than

Lindelli v. Town of San Anselmo

4 Cal. Rptr. 3d 453 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 3, 2003

In any event, according to San Anselmo, the interim contract approval was not legislative and thus is immune from the referendum power. … However, the interim waste management contract does not qualify as an urgency measure. Section 9235 does not define further what measures qualify as urgency measures.

Swinerton & Walberg Co. v. City of Inglewood-Los Angeles County Civic Center Authority

40 Cal. App. 3d 98 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 26, 1974

to tort liability established by sections 815, 815.2, subdivision (b), and 820.2. … Thus, in Rubino recovery of monetary damages in tort by the lowest responsible bidder was denied on the basis of discretionary immunity.

Devine v. American Psychoanalytic Ass'n

93 Cal. App. 4th 593 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 31, 2001

to the effective operation of the trust that these clarifying changes, all of which carry out decedent’s intent, be incorporated into the trust under decedent’s will, and in the order of distribution of this court which establishes … Under former Probate Code section 17200, appellants would be entitled to notice if they qualified as (1) successor trustees (former Prob. Code, §§ 17203, subd.

Bank of Commerce & Trust Co. v. Humphrey

41 Cal. App. 552 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 12, 1919

This is not a correct statement.Neither is it true, as clearly disclosed by the record. … That is a matter going only to the manner of qualifying after an appointment already made, and not to the validity of the appointment.