Case law

Gatton v. A.P. Green Services, Inc.

64 Cal. App. 4th 688 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 8, 1998

It is not enough, as plaintiffs argue, that all asbestos defendants would have a shared interest and motive of establishing that Gatton was not exposed to asbestos at Pinole Point. … In resisting summary judgment, the plaintiff sought to take the case out of statutory immunity for purveyors of alcohol (Civ. Code. § 1714) by showing an undertaking by the restaurant.

McCarthy v. Superior Court

162 Cal. App. 2d 755 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 13, 1958

McCarthy, if you are willing to tell your *757 story to the Court, the Court has asked me to tell you that if you do it, you must do it freely and voluntarily without any promises of immunity or reward. … We think section 866.5 is clearly applicable in this ease as pointed out recently by this court in Tupper v.

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.

Nicholson v. Sparks

104 Cal. App. 4th 289 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 12, 2002

Nicholson did not even attempt to establish that the credit card debts he paid were for expenses relating to any improvement of the Gravatt property. 11 In short, his separate property funds were not used to acquire Gravatt … If he had been able to prove this claim to the satisfaction of the court, then the payments clearly would have been reimbursable pursuant to section 2640.

Dominguez v. Solano Irrigation District

228 Cal. App. 3d 1098 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 26, 1991

As a consequence, “immunity becomes the rule unless liability is imposed by the exceptions contained in the statute.” (Widdows v. Koch, supra, 263 Cal.App.2d at p. 237 .) … Thus, it was clearly adequate for its designed purpose . . . . [fl] Here, the jury determined that plaintiff’s conduct was the major and primary cause of his own injury. This simply validated the obvious.

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.

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.)

Golden Gate Bridge, Highway & Transportation District v. Superior Court

22 Cal. Rptr. 3d 558 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 23, 2004

Superior Court (1929) 207 Cal. 722, 724 [ 279 P. 989 ] (Wheatley).) 3 Petitions were circulated and signed by a sufficient number of qualified electors in each of the counties. (Id., at p. 724.) … However, where, as here, a plaintiff brings an action against a local agency in the county in which the plaintiff is situated and does business, then section 394(a) establishes a mandatory right to transfer to a neutral county

Los Angeles County Department of Parks & Recreation v. Civil Service Commission

8 Cal. App. 4th 273 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 21, 1992

To accomplish this the employer must clearly set forth, through the introduction of admissible evidence, the reasons for the plaintiff’s rejection. … These factors did not establish discrimination. The employer does not have the burden to prove by objective evidence that the person promoted was more qualified than the plaintiff.

Southern California Ass'n of Seventh-Day Adventists v. Franchise Tax Board

47 Cal. App. 3d 207 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 15, 1975

This is clearly erroneous because exempt organizations are permitted to engage in profit-making businesses. … Conceivably, loss of this status could prevent gifts from donors from qualifying as tax deductions (a very important item to nonprofit associations.)

People v. Partee

California Court of Appeal · Apr 12, 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

Chadock v. Cohn

96 Cal. App. 3d 205 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 22, 1979

It was there held that ‘To qualify a witness as a medical expert it must be shown that the witness (1) has the required professional knowledge, learning and skill of the subject under inquiry sufficient to qualify him to … This error was clearly prejudicial. The sole basis for granting the nonsuit herein was the lack of evidence in the record to establish an *216 applicable standard of care.

Estate of Girard

110 Cal. App. 2d 203 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 1, 1952

The basic case is Estate of Glenn, supra, and the following quotation from the opinion in that case clearly shows the basis of that decision ( 74 Cal. 567 -568) : “Section 1504 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which in this … It is a judgment only in a qualified sense, and does not attain the force and dignity of an absolute judgment until an order of court is made directing the executor or administrator to pay it.

Weissbuch v. Board of Medical Examiners

41 Cal. App. 3d 924 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 20, 1974

Board of Medical Examiners, 29 Cal.App.3d 439 [ 105 Cal.Rptr. 634 ], it was clearly decided that a charge of unprofessional conduct under Business and Professions Code section 2384 was established by a conviction for violating … the laws regulating narcotics and dangerous drugs and the Board was not required to establish that such conviction amounted to “moral turpitude.”

Armenta v. Superior Court

124 Cal. Rptr. 2d 273 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 30, 2002

In short, Maas’s reports do qualify as work product. As noted in Shadow Traffic Network v. … The material real parties in interest seek to discover clearly comes within the qualified privilege expressed in Code of Civil Procedure section *536 2018, subdivision (b).

Knoell v. Petrovich

76 Cal. App. 4th 164 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 9, 1999

Appellant contends that the litigation privilege is qualified because the defamatory statements were used to “leverage” a settlement. Appellant’s reliance on Nguyen v. … “[T]he conduct of defendants alleged in the complaint is clearly communicative and otherwise within the scope of section 47(b).

As You Sow v. Conbraco Industries

37 Cal. Rptr. 3d 399 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 12, 2005

At trial, AYS sought to establish that a test method entitled “National Sanitation Foundation Intemational/American National Standards Institute Standard 61, Section 8” (NSF 61 § 8) qualified as a “method of analysis” under … Clark (1943) 22 Cal.2d 287, 292 [ 140 P.2d 657 ].) “ ‘[I]t is an established canon of interpretation that statutes are not to be given a retrospective operation unless it is clearly made to appear that such was the legislative

Zeda v. Williams

163 Cal. App. 3d 753 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 17, 1985

In support of this contention, appellant relies upon the provisions of the trust agreement establishing the fund, which in turn are based upon federal law. … The same subsection of the Act defines a “qualified domestic relations order.”

Housing Partners I, Inc. v. Duncan

206 Cal. App. 4th 1335 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 15, 2012

Next, HPI asserts the legislative history of section 1720 establishes a clear legislative intent that the exemptions be harmonized together. … The subject project did not qualify because, while some of its funding was obtained from a qualified fund, other funding was not.

Ralston Purina Co. v. County of Los Angeles

56 Cal. App. 3d 547 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 25, 1976

The provisions of title 19, United States Code, establishing customs duties, and the tariff schedules of the United States promulgated thereunder, clearly place American Samoa outside the “customs territory of the United … Four of the justices were of the opinion that the material imported was not immune from taxation. Kosydar v.