Case law

People v. Taito

California Court of Appeal · Oct 28, 2025

“The record of conviction will necessarily inform the trial court’s prima facie inquiry under section [1172.6], allowing the court to distinguish petitions with potential merit from those that are clearly meritless.” … Instead, it concluded that only aiding, abetting, or assisting the qualifying felony was required.

Inter-Insurance Exchange of Automobile Club v. Lopez

238 Cal. App. 2d 441 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 29, 1965

Appeal from a declaratory judgment establishing an insurer’s nonliability under the uninsured motorist provisions of an automobile insurance policy. … In our view a direct application of force, as by Car X striking Car B and forcing it to hit Car C, qualifies as physical contact within the meaning of the statute.

Pedeferri v. Seidner Enterprises

California Court of Appeal · Jun 12, 2013

We certainly possess the authority to exempt entire categories of negligent conduct from Civil Code section 1714's duty of care when such an exemption is "clearly supported" by public policy. … However, neither statute suggests or implies immunity for those who, by virtue of their negligence, distract drivers. (See Veh.

Tuchscher Development Enterprises, Inc. v. San Diego Unified Port District

132 Cal. Rptr. 2d 57 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 12, 2003

This determination establishes probable cause to bring the claim, for such an action clearly is not one that ‘ “any reasonable attorney would agree ... is totally and completely without merit.” ’ [Citation.] … On appeal, TDE does not explain how its evidence substantiates the elements of this claim; it simply contends respondents failed to establish their actions were statutorily immune or privileged as they had asserted in their

Kingsbury v. Whitacre

1 Cal. App. 2d 100 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 26, 1934

The rule has long been established in this state that appellate courts will not consider or review points in a ease made for the first time on appeal. (Richey v. Haley, 138 Cal. 441 [ 71 Pac. 499 ] ; Los Angeles Inv. … Section 3119 defines a qualified indorsement as follows: “Qualified indorsement. A qualified indorsement constitutes the indorser a mere assignor of the title to the instrument.

Los Angeles County Department of Children's Services v. Dirk S.

14 Cal. App. 4th 1037 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 4, 1993

Section 300, subdivisions (a) through (j), establishes several bases for dependency jurisdiction, any one of which is sufficient to establish jurisdiction. (§ 300.) … very inarticulate, can giggle, and otherwise not qualify.

Carroll v. City and County of S.F.

California Court of Appeal · Oct 31, 2019

Defendant demurred, relying on section 818.2 immunity. (Ibid.) … immunity.

Linvill v. Perello

189 Cal. App. 3d 195 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 10, 1987

In the absence of a statutory provision declaring an exception to the principle enunciated by section 1714, no such exception should be made unless clearly supported by public policy. (Rowland v. … Christian, supra, 69 Cal.2d 108 , which determine whether immunity should be given to a landowner.

Beaumont Investors v. Beaumont-Cherry Valley Water District

165 Cal. App. 3d 227 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 5, 1985

Clearly, therefore, the fee at issue here is not a “connection charge.” … In sum, the burden of establishing that it satisfied the requirements of Government Code section 50076 properly rested with defendant.

People v. Shea

39 Cal. App. 4th 1257 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 1, 1995

Under such circumstances, appellant was not immune from further questioning on cross-examination. … Clearly, it intended that violent sex offenders, the most incorrigible subset of “serious” felons, be subject to greater prison terms than mere “serious” offenders.

Posey v. State of California

180 Cal. App. 3d 836 · California Court of Appeal · May 8, 1986

The special relationship is a necessary element in the instant case as the alleged misconduct, the failure to remove or inspect the parked vehicle, is clearly nonfeasance. … Posey’s reliance on Peterson is misplaced as it is clearly distinguishable from the case at bench.

People v. Partee

California Court of Appeal · Mar 21, 2018

Nor is it established that there simply could be no satisfactory explanation. … As outlined by the majority, the argument is that she had a duty to testify because she had been subpoenaed and given immunity, and “‘when an individual’s criminal liability is based on the failure to act, it is well established

City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County

9 Cal. App. 5th 272 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 2, 2017

record public clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record.’ ” (Times Mirror Co. v. … Moreover, a CPRA proceeding is clearly “civil in nature,” as it is “wholly unrelated to any criminal case.” (Moore v.

Enlow v. City of Carpinteria

20 Cal. App. 3d 956 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 2, 1971

It clearly contains allegations sufficient to constitute a cause of action for false arrest against the individuals named in the above quoted title and against defendant city; 2 whether or not it also alleges that cause of … County of Los Angeles (1968) 266 Cal.App.2d 550, 554 [ 72 Cal.Rptr. 265 ]) establish an immunity against the action for false arrest and false imprisonment. Plaintiff relies on our earlier holding in Shakespeare v.

People v. Brown

14 Cal. App. 3d 334 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 14, 1971

Brown immunity under the provisions of section 1324 of the Penal Code. Similar prejudice is claimed to have arisen from the fact that D. was actually granted such immunity while he testified. … After establishing that defendant had firearms in the house, the prosecutor asked for a conference in chambers.

Goldsmith v. Superior Court

152 Cal. App. 3d 76 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 21, 1984

As clearly as in Hughes, the prosecution’s access to and use of the gun at trial would go a long way to establishing defendant’s possession of the gun at the critical time. 12 In Hughes, once the gun was produced, the prosecution … In my view this production cannot be compelled absent a grant of immunity.” (Ibid.)

Delta Manufacturing Co. v. Jones

69 Cal. App. 3d 428 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 27, 1977

This is clearly emphasized in Mid-Century Ins. Co. v. … established a joint and several liability of Jones and Vaughan upon allegations of tortious liability.

People v. Jackson

125 Cal. App. 2d 776 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 7, 1954

That case is clearly distinguishable. There much of the recordings played to the jury were inaudible and unintelligible and subject to varying interpretations by the jurors. … Here the alibi testimony is so related to the confessions that the acceptance of the latter as true and uncoerced automatically established the former as untrue. The judgments and orders are affirmed. Moore, P.

Sanchez v. City of San Diego CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · Jun 21, 2023

The court also found that the City Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity from plaintiffs’ First Amendment claims. … The court also found that the City Defendants were again entitled to qualified immunity on the plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment claims.

Joyce v. Simi Valley Unified School District

1 Cal. Rptr. 3d 712 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 8, 2003

The argument is based on the theory that District has immunity as a matter of law because the injury occurred off school property. … In the first appeal this court held that Education Code section 44808 did not provide immunity. ( Joyce, supra, B053453.)