Case law

People v. Humiston

20 Cal. App. 4th 460 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 23, 1993

They soon established a boyfriend-girlfriend relationship. Through Jurado, Humiston met Shigemura, Holloway and Brian Johnsen. … Use immunity has also been applied in juvenile cases. For example, in Bryan v.

Harris v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board

228 Cal. App. 2d 1 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 17, 1964

No specific limitation or restriction as to proximity or student patronage was imposed under the exception upon premises that could qualify as a bona fide public eating place. … In the authority last cited it is said: “ ‘Clearly, the legislative body must declare the policy of the law and fix some kind of legal principles which are to control in given cases.

In Re Justin S.

113 Cal. Rptr. 2d 466 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 6, 2001

Our colleagues in Division Five, by analogy to objections to evidence, held that such a contention is not immune from Welch 's waiver rule. (See In re Josue S., supra, 72 Cal.App.4th at p. 170, 84 Cal. … (See also, In re Bushman (1970) 1 Cal.3d 767, 776-777 , 83 Cal.Rptr. 375 , 463 P.2d 727 , as qualified by People v.

People v. Gonzalez

California Court of Appeal · Aug 13, 2020

“The starting point of our analysis is ‘the strong presumption that legislative enactments “must be upheld unless their unconstitutionality clearly, positively, and unmistakably appears. [Citations.]” [Citation.]’” … It is unlawful for a [p]erson to establish, operate or participate in a medical marijuana collective or cooperative unless in a dwelling unit with three or fewer qualified patients, persons with identification cards or primary

Gamble v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

49 Cal. Rptr. 3d 36 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 26, 2006

“The distinction between compensation for wage loss [temporary disability] and permanent impairment is well established. In Nickelsberg v. Workers’ Comp. … It was United’s burden of proof to establish entitlement to credit. (Evid. Code, § 500; see also Ott v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd., supra, 118 Cal.App.3d at pp. 921-922.) IV.

Swickheimer v. King

22 Cal. App. 3d 220 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 21, 1971

They take the position that King’s testimony conclusively establishes that he breached his duties as a responsible managing employee and that he should therefore have been held liable to plaintiffs. … The sections in question are regulatory and disciplinary in nature, and they were clearly not intended to alter the rules governing civil liability. In Hollywood etc. Co. v.

People v. Scott

102 Cal. Rptr. 2d 622 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 21, 2000

Thus, the very appellate order to which Mitchell III now gives preclusive effect was clearly interlocutory in nature. … The answer to this argument is clearly and easily settled by the express language of the Supreme Court in Monge.

Perry v. City of Santa Monica

130 Cal. App. 2d 370 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 25, 1955

The governmental immunity which a city enjoys as a state agency can be, taken away only by legislative enactment. (Whiting v. City of National City, 9 Cal.2d 163, 165 [ 69 P.2d 990 ]; Van Dorn v. … Upon analysis, it clearly appears that the gravamen of plaintiffs’ complaint is the failure of a governmental function.

Speight v. Million

235 Cal. App. 2d 233 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 23, 1965

They are as follows: The City of Oakland established and regulates the Oakland Municipal Employees’ Retirement System by Ordinance No. 713 C.M.S. … This language clearly indicates the city’s intent to give preference to the surviving widow’s allowance under section 17.3 over the claim of the designated beneficiary under section 18.15.

People v. Grier

53 Cal. App. Supp. 2d 841 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 24, 1942

However, that ease is clearly distinguishable from ours both under the facts and under the law. … The terms of the contract between the appellant and the members of his orchestra clearly established the relationship of employer and employees.

Jewett v. Capital One Bank

6 Cal. Rptr. 3d 675 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 22, 2003

The court distinguished DuPont on the basis that Grobust, as opposed to Coumadin, is not widely used, does not treat life-threatening conditions, and does not qualify as a matter of public interest by the number of persons … Moreover, while matters of health and weight management are of interest to the public, advertisers should not be permitted to immunize false or misleading product information by including references to public issues, in order

Truck Insurance Exchange v. Transamerica Insurance

28 Cal. App. 3d 787 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 17, 1972

under established "rales of interpretation. … Such use does not determine or qualify absolutely the nature of the equipment.

Hill v. Newkirk

26 Cal. App. 4th 1047 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 12, 1994

Thus, the Fund was established to provide liability coverage for occurrences peculiar to foster care. … Hill failed to establish a “reasonable possibility” she could amend her complaint to satisfy section 1527.6.

Shufelt v. Hall

163 Cal. App. 4th 1020 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 5, 2008

declaratory relief was not a proper remedy, the proper means for adjudicating Shufelt’s claims were by direct appeal or by a petition for habeas corpus, the appellate court had already ruled on Shufelt’s claims, and Beaumont was immune … Unlike other litigants, pro se prisoners cannot personally travel to the courthouse to see that the notice is stamped ’filed’ or to establish the date on which the court received the notice.

Brockway Land & Water Co. v. County of Placer

124 Cal. App. 2d 371 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 2, 1954

Clearly, after his discharge, a receiver is not a proper party to an action on a contract made by him in his official capacity. … Feraud was appointed receiver on June 27, 1930, there was no allegation that he was still the duly qualified and acting receiver at the time the complaint was filed in 1949.

Davis v. Damrell

119 Cal. App. 3d 883 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 1, 1981

In reaffirming the long-established principle immunizing the legal practitioner from liability resulting from an honest error in judgment concerning a doubtful or debatable point of law, the California Supreme Court imposed … Of course, those subsequent decisions are temporarily irrelevant to the question to be decided herein relating to the state of the relevant law in 1970 which—as previously noted— postured clearly arguable issues “upon which

Rosas v. Montgomery

10 Cal. App. 3d 77 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 31, 1970

As both conclusions establish an “abuse of discretion” by the director (id.), we reverse the judgment. … To provide alcoholics who are not physically or mentally unable to work with a settled source of income will not only burden taxpayers with a heavy encumbrance, which the Legislature has not clearly intended the taxpayers

People v. Harby

51 Cal. App. 2d 759 · California Court of Appeal · May 7, 1942

July 1 he qualified and was at all times thereafter and until judgment herein a qualified acting member of such city council. … It was clearly charged by the pleading and fully established by the proof that in violation of section 504 of the Penal Code, and with a flippant disregard of a city ordinance (§ 63.106) appellant made a selfish use of a

Ceridian Corp. v. Franchise Tax Board

102 Cal. Rptr. 2d 611 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 18, 2001

The court considered challenges to the statute under both the equal protection and privileges and immunities clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. (Id. at p. 419 [ 56 S.Ct. at p. 254 ].) … But even if this were true, the insurance premium tax scheme cannot qualify as a “compensatory” tax since the state has utterly failed to establish the other elements of the “compensatory tax defense” to a facially discriminatory

In Re Brady

65 Cal. App. 345 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 19, 1924

The court said, in part: “This provision is clearly unconstitutional and void. It does not apply to counties of any other class. . . . … I, sec. 21) expressly prohibiting the granting of special privileges or immunities.