Case law

Hayssen v. Board of Zoning Adjustments

171 Cal. App. 3d 400 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 22, 1985

Although early case law held that local governments were immune from suit under section 1983 (Monroe v. … The court below found that appellants did not establish a violation of the constitutional notice requirement, and we affirmed.

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

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.’

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

California Court of Appeal · Mar 23, 2016

Clearly, the jury focused on it. … Code, § 196 and official immunity under Gov.

In Re Salvador M.

4 Cal. Rptr. 3d 705 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 14, 2003

After argument, the court denied appellant's motions, finding she did not qualify as either a de facto parent or a presumed mother. … Moreover, she clearly has standing to raise the issue on appeal.

Johnson v. Tate

215 Cal. App. 3d 1282 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 21, 1989

Appellant clearly lacks statutory authority to proceed in this manner. … The cause *1287 of action is clearly one to impose a constructive trust. Just as clearly, it makes its contractual claim adversely to the beneficiaries of the trust, and does not seek to affect its internal affairs.

Nelson v. Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control

166 Cal. App. 2d 783 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 6, 1959

It is also clear from the evidence that during said *786 period the known prostitutes solicited patrons of the establishment and liquor control agents on those portions of the premises upon which the activities permitted … A reading of the transcript of the evidence clearly shows that the case was tried on the theory that all of the acts complained of occurred on the premises, and the evidence substantially supports such theory.

Ross v. Kalin

53 Cal. App. 616 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 21, 1921

aver that there is no prejudice against the plaintiff in any portion of the county outside of the city of Brawley, and that there is no reason why he cannot have an impartial trial in the county. [1] The rule of law is established … From the figures submitted as to registered voters, it appears that there were probably more than eight thousand, and possibly as many as twelve thousand, qualified jurors in Imperial County at the time of this hearing.

Patchin v. City of Oakland

248 Cal. App. 2d 859 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 28, 1967

Plaintiff clearly did not meet the requirements of subdivision (a) of section 243, since his disability was not service-connected. … member of the Police or Pire Departments of the Oity of Oakland who become members of the Betirement System established by this Article . . . .”

West Contra Costa Unified School Dist. v. Super. Ct.

California Court of Appeal · Jul 31, 2024

large discretion in determining what is for the public good and what are public purposes for which public moneys can be rightfully expended and that discretion cannot be controlled by the courts except when its action is clearly … contention that the Legislature acted reasonably in concluding that decent housing for the affected persons serves a public purpose.”]; La Fuente, supra 20 Cal.2d at p. 877 [“The care and relief of aged persons who are in need clearly

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.

City of Santa Rosa v. Press Democrat

187 Cal. App. 3d 1315 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 16, 1986

nature and scope of permissible disclosure. 4 Opposing respondents’ contrary argument, City . contends that the trial court possesses jurisdiction to adjudicate the issues at stake: 1) under the theory of “reverse FOIA” established … We are mindful that Cutter involved the applicability of the Civil Code section 47, subdivision 2 immunity from suit to an uncompelled disclosure by a therapist of information subject to the statutory psychotherapist-patient

Airline Pilots Ass'n International v. United Airlines, Inc.

223 Cal. App. 4th 706 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 31, 2014

However, as the United States Supreme Court has explained in Morash: “The precise coverage of ERISA is not clearly set forth in the Act. … Equally established is that United employees are not taxed on this income until the time of distribution.

Spring Oaks Capital SPV, LLC v. Fowler

California Court of Appeal · Feb 3, 2026

Although Evidence Code section 1271 requires only that a “qualified witness” testify, the witness must nonetheless “be familiar with the procedures followed” to establish a factual basis for the exception to apply. … Accordingly, Russell was not qualified to establish that Exhibits 1 and 2 were admissible under the business records exception.

People v. Frederick G.

96 Cal. App. 3d 353 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 24, 1979

Balderas was not given immunity from prosecution for the crime. During the trial she was extended immunity as to her admission about heroin use only. Detective Singleton contacted Sandra Garcia at juvenile hall. … Contrary to appellant’s statement, Balderas did not testify under a promise of immunity from prosecution for the crime but during trial was given immunity with respect to her testimony regarding her use of drugs.

Wilson v. Blue Cross of Southern California

222 Cal. App. 3d 660 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 27, 1990

However, the normal basis of tort liability can only be departed from when “public policy clearly requires that an exception be made.” (Lipson v. … No such clear public policy exists to provide an immunity to Western Medical.

Estate of Kincaid

174 Cal. App. 2d 84 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 28, 1959

The decree of distribution by which the testamentary trust was established was entered on June 8, 1956. … The intent to make the gift which appellant claims does not clearly appear from the trust instrument.

Veterans of Foreign Wars v. State of California

36 Cal. App. 3d 688 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 11, 1974

To an extent we need not decide here, such a fund is immune from statutory diversion to an unrelated purpose. (See Riley v. Johnson, 6 Cal.2d 529, 532-533 [ 58 P.2d 631 ]; Riley v. … To insure that all qualified veterans will have funds available this act must go into effect immediately.”