Case law

People v. Orlosky

233 Cal. App. 4th 257 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 16, 2015

Although section 11362.775 clearly provides for collective cultivation, it does not specify what the Legislature meant by an association of persons who engage in collective or cooperative cultivation for medical purposes … that Jones was a qualified patient.

A.D. Improvements v. Dept. of Transportation

California Court of Appeal · Oct 22, 2024

Well-established principles of statutory construction also support ADI’s reading of section 118.1. … This language clearly indicates the Legislature’s intent that the statute governs the sale of excess real property.

People v. Mitchell

30 Cal. App. 4th 783 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 30, 1994

“[Offenders] cannot complain of the vagueness of a statute if the conduct with which they are charged falls clearly within its bounds.” (Bowland v. … Although CALJIC No. 12.37 refers to “a qualified controlled substances expert,” it does not identify who, if anyone, qualified for that role at the trial.

Institute of Athletic Motivation v. University of Illinois

114 Cal. App. 3d 1 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 29, 1980

At trial, plaintiff sought to establish that studies confirming the reliability and validity of the AMI did in fact exist, that Martens knew or should have known of their existence at the time he sent the letter, and that … Martens’ letter were viewed as containing only an expression of his opinion concerning the statistical accuracy or sufficiency of particular studies proffered in support of the AMI, then of course the communication would be immune

Wayne v. Staples, Inc.

37 Cal. Rptr. 3d 544 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 4, 2006

While it is unlikely that a court would find a price set by a freely competitive market to be unconscionable [citation], the market price set by an oligopoly should not be immune from scrutiny. … First, Staples clearly discloses the price of the declared value coverage, thus negating any contention of procedural unconscionability based on “surprise.” (See Gutierrez v.

Wilson v. Cable News Network, Inc.

6 Cal. App. 5th 822 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 13, 2016

The evidence establishes that Wilson had a significant role in shaping and reporting the news. … Thus, if the employment decision of hiring a weather anchor in Hunter “qualifies as an act in furtherance of the exercise of free speech,” so do the employment decisions concerning the work of a CNN news producer such as

Will v. Engebretson & Co.

213 Cal. App. 3d 1033 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 31, 1989

After noting that the courts are “better qualified” by “long and continuing experience and practice” to determine the adequacy of the committee’s formation and investigative techniques, it held that the plaintiff who opposes … That section clearly provides that the sole function of the trial court is to determine if there is a triable issue of fact.

Culp v. Webster

25 Cal. App. Supp. 2d 759 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 29, 1937

laws referred to, *Supp. 762 would, in the absence of any limiting context, include the veterans themselves with whom these laws are concerned and for whom benefits are thereby provided, and the benefits so provided are clearly … exempt not only while the guardian held it in specie but also while it was on deposit in a bank, the court saying, “We cannot conceive that it was the intent of Congress that the veteran should lose the benefit of this immunity

Wilson v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

196 Cal. App. 3d 902 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 3, 1987

Clearly, City received a marked advantage through more thorough and efficient law enforcement. City of Los Angeles v. Workers’ Comp. … Since we have concluded that both prongs of the test of “reasonable expectancy of employment” established in Ezzy v. Workers’ Comp.

In Re Marriage of Purnel

52 Cal. App. 4th 527 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 31, 1997

Wife has questioned the jurisdiction of the California trial court to make the orders it did by choosing narrowly to argue that such orders disregarded the immunity of Indian Trust Allotment lands and the immunity of any … As a result, it was and is clearly available to wife to honor the court’s order that she support her children.

Friedman v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group

125 Cal. Rptr. 2d 663 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 24, 2002

Stated another way, the court should find beliefs to be a religion if they ‘occupy the same place in the life of the [individual] as an orthodox belief in God holds in the life of one clearly qualified.’ … to that filled by the orthodox belief in God of one who clearly qualifies for the exemption.”

Worcester v. Board of Supervisors

55 Cal. App. 2d 883 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 5, 1942

That she is and was qualified for said aid under sections 1500 to 1526 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. That she received such aid from April 1, 1938 to November 1, 1940. … That on April 25, 1941, the “Board of Social Welfare” determined that the home in which this minor was residing did not meet the standards established by said “Social Welfare Board.”

Clausing v. San Francisco Unified School District

221 Cal. App. 3d 1224 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 29, 1990

In each individual instance, the District and the individuals involved would be entitled to different affirmative defenses and immunities. … Clearly, although safety and happiness are inalienable rights, this provision of the Constitution does not establish the means whereby they may be enjoyed.

In re D.T. CA3

California Court of Appeal · Dec 10, 2025

Toledo (1980) 446 U.S. 635, 640 [official seeking qualified immunity bears burden of invoking it]; Quigley v. … Callahan (2009) 555 U.S. 223, 231 [qualified immunity protects government officials from “suit” for “ ‘civil damages’ ”]; County of Santa Clara v.

City of Los Altos v. Board of Administration

80 Cal. App. 3d 1049 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 20, 1978

The temporary seasonal employees involved in this case, did not meet the city’s criteria for “full-time” status but did qualify under the PERS definition as set forth in its Manual for Procedures section 23.1(a). … The interpretation of a statute by an administrative agency charged with its enforcement and construction is entitled to great weight unless it is clearly erroneous or unauthorized. (Crumpler v.

Arega v. Bay Area Rapid Transit District

California Court of Appeal · Sep 14, 2022

BART’s multiple objections to Smith’s declaration are reflected clearly in the record. … Fairbanks North Star Borough School Dist. (9th Cir. 2003) 323 F.3d 1185, 1194 [qualifications standing alone may establish pretext where the plaintiff’s qualifications are “ ‘clearly superior’ ” to those of the selected job

Wilcox v. Enstad

122 Cal. App. 3d 641 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 14, 1981

In an analogous situation, this court stated: “We are not unmindful of the well-established rule that pension legislation, such as that here involved, should be liberally construed, resolving all ambiguities in favor of the … The very purpose of saving money was thwarted in this case by respondent’s ignoring the clearly stated terms of the section.

Bearman v. Superior Court

11 Cal. Rptr. 3d 644 · California Court of Appeal · May 3, 2004

if that person demonstrates his status as a qualified patient. … (Italics added.) 3 In 2003, the Legislature passed sections 11362.7 through 11362.83, which establish a program for state-issued identification cards to patients who qualify for the medical use of marijuana.

Eureka Teacher's Assn. v. Board of Education

202 Cal. App. 3d 469 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 24, 1988

For the 1984-1985 school year the school district had vacant positions in which Moehnke was qualified to serve. … states in its opening brief, without citation to the record, that “the school filled the vacant positions with teachers who scored higher than petitioner Moehnke on the competitive examination process.” 2 “The Education Code establishes

Love v. County of Los Angeles CA2/2

California Court of Appeal · May 11, 2016

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from liability from civil damages if their conduct does not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable public official should have been aware. … When a court determines that no right has been violated, it need not delve further into the question of qualified immunity. (Pearson v. Callahan (2009) 555 U.S. 223, 232.)