Case law

Kalamaras v. Albany Unified School District

226 Cal. App. 3d 1571 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 24, 1991

“Interpretation and applicability of a statute or ordinance is clearly a question of law.” (9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (3d ed. 1985) Appeal, § 242, p. 247.) … But the very statute which establishes the District’s obligation to evaluate teachers (Ed.

Kline v. Superior Court

227 Cal. App. 3d 512 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 1, 1991

The recent amendment to section 36 must be given prospective application only. “ ‘It is well established that statutes and other enactments should not be given a retroactive operation unless the legislative intent to do so … is clearly apparent.’

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.

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

LAOSD Asbestos Cases

California Court of Appeal · Mar 4, 2026

Longo’s expert opinion is clearly invalid and unreliable. [¶] I do find from his extended testimony and the foundation established, that as a matter of logic, the studies and other information he relied upon, adequately support … We note that as part of qualifying as an expert, Dr.

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.

In re Joshua A.

California Court of Appeal · Aug 5, 2015

The statutory scheme clearly allows a person who has an established familial relationship with a parent of the dependent child to qualify as an NREFM. … The intent of the Legislature to include a person with established familial ties to a parent as an NREFM is clearly expressed both in the plain language of section 362.7 as well as the statute's judicial and legislative

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).

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.

Morgan v. Regents of the University of California

105 Cal. Rptr. 2d 652 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 30, 2000

In the context of the academic tenure system, in which decisions and recommendations made in earlier levels of review may be available to decision makers at subsequent levels, it clearly makes sense to acknowledge that the … Clearly, appellant was given sufficient objective criteria to be able to attempt to rebut the proffered reasons by demonstrating his competence.

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.

In re Grinder

California Court of Appeal · Oct 2, 2025

The Legislature clearly intended oral copulation by force or violence to be a basis for an MDO commitment because the MDO Act’s qualifying offenses include “[o]ral copulation by force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of … We conclude Stevens established a procedural rule by altering the permissible methods for determining a prisoner qualified as an MDO—that is, by establishing a rule regarding the use of hearsay and opinions of mental health

Spencer v. City of Alhambra

44 Cal. App. 2d 75 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 7, 1941

It establishes a scale of minimum salaries. … In addition to the sections previously cited herein, we find positive and unequivocal language which impels the conclusion that in adopting their charter the citizens of Alhambra clearly intended to vest exclusively in the

People v. Chambless

88 Cal. Rptr. 2d 444 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 31, 1999

When the evaluation reveals the inmate has suffered the required qualifying prior convictions (§§ 6600, subds. … Regardless of the extent of the touching, each act as admitted by Chambless clearly falls under the definition of masturbation we have found contained in section 6600.1, subdivision (b).

People v. Manson

61 Cal. App. 3d 102 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 13, 1976

Kasabian Immunity From the outset of her testimony—July 27, 1970—Kasabian made it clear that she had been tendered a grant of immunity (Pen. Code, *134 §. 1324). … Here the absence of counsel qualifies as legal necessity in the same manner as would the absence of judge or juror. (See Curry v.

Karlin v. Zalta

154 Cal. App. 3d 953 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 29, 1984

On the subject of *969 the immunities heralded by its preamble, two sections of the McBride Act specifically immunize certain conduct subsumed by its provisions from prosecution under other laws. … Having established this mechanism for achieving price competition without initial rate regulation by the Insurance Commissioner, the McBride Act provides categorically for immunity from prosecution under other laws that do

People v. Clay

227 Cal. App. 2d 87 · California Court of Appeal · May 7, 1964

Thus the inspector’s testimony clearly assisted the jury in determining whether or not defendant’s conduct was felonious under all the circumstances. … AfBrming an order granting a new trial, the court stated that “The testimony admitted was clearly incompetent under the decision of this court in People v. Carroll, 80 Cal. 153 [ 22 P. 129 ], ...”

Barry v. Board of Directors

7 Cal. App. 2d 412 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 6, 1935

for this procedure it violates no mandatory or directory provision of any election law; and that this procedure preserved the record so that anyone casting such a marked ballot and who claimed a right to vote could later establish … is void because sections 4a and 4b are unconstitutional in that they are local and special laws where general laws can be made applicable, that they do not have a uniform operation, that they grant special privileges or immunities

Janssen v. County of Los Angeles

50 Cal. App. 2d 45 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 19, 1942

Had the facts and the evidence thereof supported such a description, other doctrines clearly would apply. … The action of the Flood Control District was an effort to locate, establish and maintain a channel, but not to change one.

People v. Moore

201 Cal. App. 3d 877 · California Court of Appeal · May 31, 1988

In a subsequent conversation with defendant at defense counsel’s oflice defendant was again offered immunity. … Rather, the jury knew he was a felon and given immunity for his testimony.