Case law

Cleare v. Super. Ct.

California Court of Appeal · Apr 17, 2026

At trial, the issue quickly became reframed as whether the District had established that compliance with the relevant statutes made it impossible to put enough qualified teachers in classrooms, thus excusing the District’ … Central to its function is the belief that knowledge should be imparted by qualified instructors.

Cheal v. El Camino Hospital

223 Cal. App. 4th 736 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 31, 2014

The more pertinent question is whether defendant established that plaintiff’s infractions of the policy exceeded the hospital’s norms—as established, for instance, by the rate and severity of errors committed by other workers … Defendant plainly failed to establish the absence of a triable issue of fact on this point.

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

Meadowbrook Ins. Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.

California Court of Appeal · Nov 21, 2019

The parties offer no authority establishing that the schedule of fees set out in Title 8, section 9795.3 is not a “fee schedule” such that it qualifies as such under the relevant regulation. … Because the WCAB’s interpretation of the law is clearly mistaken, the WCAB’s opinion and decision on reconsideration must be annulled. (Pearson Ford, supra, 16 Cal.App.5th at p. 895.)

Metric Man Inc. v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board

59 Cal. App. 4th 1041 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 8, 1997

Under that test, a salesperson qualifies as an employee only if: 1. … and not qualifying as employees under the federal statute.

People v. Gott

26 Cal. App. 4th 881 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 8, 1994

This formulation clearly establishes the Legislature’s intent to provide that authorized possession is an affirmative defense that must be raised and proved by the accused. … The accepted rule is expressed very clearly in State v. Abbey [1856] 29 Vt. 60 , [67 Am.Dec. 754].

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.

Shaddox v. Melcher

270 Cal. App. 2d 598 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 12, 1969

establish that defendant, William C. … establish that defendant” Melcher was state-employed and driving a state car.

Horne v. Internat. Union Painters, Dist. Council 16

California Court of Appeal · Dec 3, 2013

It found that Horne was unable to establish a prima facie case of discrimination because he did not show that he was qualified for the job for which he applied. … that he was qualified for the position.

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).

Phillips v. Seely

43 Cal. App. 3d 104 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 15, 1974

of his own under section 863 within the 60-day period, the agency’s action will become immune from attack whether it is legally valid or not. … The case at bench is clearly distinguishable since the record before us fully establishes that Mr.

People v. Bateman

57 Cal. App. 2d 585 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 9, 1943

The law is established in California that the testimony of a duly qualified expert, such as Officer Boswell, is admissible to explain the significance of cryptic letters and figures which appear upon papers, books, and paraphernalia … The answer given by the witness clearly referred to the significance of the lists and figures in bookmaking activities generally.

Stanton v. Stanton

190 Cal. App. 4th 547 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 24, 2010

The term “qualified military benefit” means “any allowance or in-kind benefit” that a military member receives. ( 26 U.S.C. § 134 (b)(1)(A).) … The purpose of federal garnishment law is “to avoid sovereign immunity problems, not to shield income from valid support orders.”

Cheek v. Whiston

159 Cal. App. 2d 472 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 17, 1958

This is an action to establish existence of a constructive trust in an oil royalty interest, to quiet title, and for an accounting. … Plaintiff was appointed and qualified as trustee in bankruptcy and this action was filed.

Paule v. State Personnel Board

38 Cal. App. 3d 32 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 21, 1974

Appellant’s petition for mandate clearly bottomed, as it is, upon the averments that Board had no authority to restrict the examination and acted in excess of its statutory powers is governed by Code of Civil Procedure, section … Examinations shall be held on an open, nonpromotional basis when, in the judgment of the board, open competition will produce eligible lists with more highly skilled qualified candidates and is consistent with the best interests

Citizens for Uniform Laws v. County of Contra Costa

233 Cal. App. 3d 1468 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 10, 1991

It prohibits various types of discriminatory practices in employment, housing, business establishments, and county facilities and services. … Thus, the portions of the ordinance forbidding discrimination in business establishments and county facilities and services are clearly not preempted by FEHA, and it is further arguable that FEHA does not occupy the field

People v. Corona

211 Cal. App. 3d 529 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 14, 1989

The International Law Commission, which drafted the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, stated quite clearly in a report to the United Nations General Assembly that the capacity to waive the privileges and immunities … Here, in contrast, nonconsensual use of the privileged document would have struck at the heart of the consular privileges and immunities established by the Vienna Convention, while any intrusion upon Corona’s right of confrontation

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.

Deglow v. Bd. of Trs. of Los Rios Cmty. Coll. Dist.

69 Cal. App. 3d 459 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 12, 1977

Although she argues to the contrary, those years of part-time employment did not qualify her for permanent status under section 13304 . Mrs. … The years of part-time employment ending in June 1972 did not qualify Mrs. Deglow for permanent status.

Gateway Community Charters v. Spiess

9 Cal. App. 5th 499 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 8, 2017

Therefore, the statutory designations identified by Gateway and CCSA are clearly not intended to render charter schools public school districts for all purposes, nor is it likely charter schools actually desire to be treated … Our role is merely to interpret the statute as written, not to establish policy. (Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority v. Alameda Produce Market, LLC (2011) 52 Cal.4th 1100, 1112-1113.)