Case law

Leber v. DKD of Davis, Inc.

237 Cal. App. 4th 402 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 4, 2015

He contends the Buyer’s Guide does not qualify as a disclaimer under this “very strict” statute. … This may or may not be true, but we fail to see the relevance of this claim in establishing DKD’s liability in the first instance.

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.

County of San Joaquin v. State Water Res. Control Bd.

54 Cal. App. 4th 1144 · California Court of Appeal · May 6, 1997

In this dispute, established water users challenge restrictions imposed under new federal standards for water quality and wildlife *1147 protection. … The Bureau clearly has a substantial interest in this litigation. Appellants also essentially seek to create a new, determinative, factor.

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

Oliver v. Board of Trustees of Eisenhower Medical Center

181 Cal. App. 3d 824 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 16, 1986

Oliver qualify for Consulting Medical Staff. He is not widely renowned professionally. He may be a good psychiatrist and expert in forensics—locally.” Dr. … The record clearly demonstrates that petitioner’s skills in neurology, neurosurgery and psychiatry already were represented on the staff at EMC. Dr.

Cooper v. State Board of Equalization

137 Cal. App. 2d 672 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 9, 1955

Thus, even if it was necessary to establish that appellant had a specific intent to hire the employees for solicitation purposes, such fact was established by clear evidence and the reasonable inferences therefrom.” … Appellants’ interpretation of the language referring to employees in these other statutes is clearly unsound.

Excelsior College v. Board of Registered Nursing

39 Cal. Rptr. 3d 618 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 23, 2006

not qualify for licensure. … Excelsior failed to establish a right to an evidentiary hearing.

Ewing v. Northridge Hospital Medical Center

16 Cal. Rptr. 3d 591 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 27, 2004

It found: (1) expert evidence is required to establish the exception to immunity codified at section 43.92, and the parents failed to designate an expert, and (2) because the threat of risk posed by the patient was communicated … In enacting section 43.92, the Legislature clearly took to heart Justice Mosk’s admonition and severely narrowed the rule in Tarasoff to eliminate “all reference to conformity to standards of the profession in predicting

Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board

1 Cal. Rptr. 3d 339 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 30, 2003

It forbade underage buy operations at any establishment that had not been notified in the previous six months of the possibility such operations would be conducted. … Accordingly, courts generally will not depart from such construction unless it is clearly erroneous or unauthorized.” (Maples v.

People v. The North River Insurance Co.

California Court of Appeal · Dec 20, 2017

This contention establishes, at best, that the facts necessary for relief occurred before the appearance period expired; it does not establish that the surety presented them to the court as a basis for relief during that … We are disinclined to countenance such a result in the absence of any legislative intent to carve out such a potentially significant immunity for sureties, particularly when that immunity would likely exist at the very moment

Adoption of T.K.

California Court of Appeal · Nov 4, 2015

[D.N.] claimed that within the limits and boundaries established by [K.K.], he was supportive, . . . . enough-so to qualify as a presumed father. … Case What we have already said is sufficient to establish there was no error here on the trial court’s part in finding the D.N. did not qualify for Kelsey S. fatherhood.

JAMS, Inc. v. Superior Court of San Diego County

1 Cal. App. 5th 984 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 27, 2016

If a defendant meets this threshold showing, 8 the cause of action shall be stricken unless the plaintiff can establish 'a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the … The court also rejected a contention the advertisement's statement " ' "an attorney" will "investigate whether you have a potential claim" ' " qualified as commercial speech.

People v. Smith

California Court of Appeal · May 24, 2016

A check cashing business clearly satisfies this definition. … Because the voters intended section 459.5 to include theft by false pretenses, entering a check cashing 12 establishment and passing counterfeit bills or notes qualifies

Bohannon v. Board of Medical Examiners

24 Cal. App. 215 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 31, 1914

And finally, it provides that if, after such practical demonstration, an applicant shall qualify by effecting a cure, the State Board of Medical Examiners shall issue a certificate to such applicant to practice the special … It is not necessary to review in detail all the decisions of the supreme court upon this subject, the above expressions sufficiently indicating the well established rules that guide us in determining whether a classification

People v. Warren

161 Cal. App. 3d 961 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 19, 1984

A defense motion that in lieu of such immunity the court dismiss the charges against appellant was denied. … Texas, [supra,] 388 U.S. 14 , 19 . . ., clearly established that a party’s right to present his own witnesses in establishing a defense is a fundamental component of due process: [t]he right to offer the testimony of witnesses

Guardianship of Romine

91 Cal. App. 2d 389 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 22, 1949

The circumstances of this case clearly indicate that it was not the intention of the father to abandon his child. … Numerous cases hold that the intention of a parent to permanently abandon his child must clearly appear before he may be deprived of its custody on that account.

People Ex Rel. Department of Public Works v. Lang Transportation Corp.

43 Cal. App. 2d 134 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 18, 1941

The trial court held him qualified, and the ruling of that court upon the qualification of an expert, will not be disturbed unless an abuse of discretion appears. (People v. Hinkle, 64 Cal. … This clearly and concisely expresses the rule, but we cannot see wherein it is not in accord with the principle of law set forth in the instruction.

Susag v. City of Lake Forest

115 Cal. Rptr. 2d 269 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 8, 2002

It is established that a person convicted of resisting or obstructing a peace officer (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. … “A government official is qualifiedly immune from [section] 1983 liability unless his [or her] conduct violates ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have *1414 known.’

Sparks v. City of Compton

64 Cal. App. 3d 592 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 6, 1976

cognizable cause of action is raised on motion for judgment on the pleadings, the motion should be denied if it appears that the plaintiff is entitled to relief on any theory—even if facts entitling him to such relief are not clearly … Assuming the decision to arrest to be discretionary and therefore immune from liability, such immunity would not shield the defendants from liability for negligence in the implementation of this decision. (McCorkle v.

Martinez v. City of Clovis

California Court of Appeal · Apr 7, 2023

We conclude a governmental entity like the City does not qualify as a “business establishment” and, therefore, is subject to the third sentence. (See Cheng, et al., Cal. … Legislative Immunity Does Not Apply The order sustaining the demurrer to the FEHA cause of action could be affirmed if a statutory immunity applies to the City’s practice.