Case law

Lo v. Miran CA4/3

California Court of Appeal · Aug 21, 2025

This analysis would necessarily permit a defendant to introduce evidence showing their action qualifies as one in furtherance of protected speech or petitioning. (Id. at pp. 889–891.) … Even in the context of the press pursuing stories of public importance—clearly protected conduct—the press is not immune from torts committed in the process. (See Shulman v.

People v. Cartier

170 Cal. App. 2d 613 · California Court of Appeal · May 25, 1959

The *617 testimony of Durland’s employe clearly established that someone had entered the premises with the intention of committing theft. … The evidence we are about to relate clearly established that the officers had reasonable cause for the arrest of Cartier.

Korean American Legal Advocacy Foundation v. City of Los Angeles

23 Cal. App. 4th 376 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 17, 1994

Section 23790 No Longer Provides Plaintiffs Immunity From Compliance With Local Valid Zoning Ordinances. … The qualifying events the Legislature chose as exceptions to “continuous operations” are few and extraordinary. These qualifying events, in turn, must be narrowly construed as exceptions to the general statutory scheme.

People v. Marchialette

45 Cal. App. 3d 974 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 12, 1975

Such statements testified to by Collier were clearly verbal acts which explain qualify or make understandable the conduct of the declarant and they were made while the declarant was engaged in such conduct. (People v. … The prosecution evidence therefore did not establish self-defense as a matter of law. It was a proper jury function to resolve the conflicts in the evidence. (People v.

Meadowbrook Ins. Co. v. Workers' Compensation App. Bd.

California Court of Appeal · Dec 20, 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.)

Roberts v. Del Monte Properties Co.

111 Cal. App. 2d 69 · California Court of Appeal · May 12, 1952

from liability for bodily harm caused thereby as though it were the owner of the land invaded the province of the jury by stating contested issues as established facts. … The jury was clearly instructed that if they might find the defendant negligent they had still to determine whether that negligence contributed in any degree as a proximate cause of the accident, and that if they found that

People v. Crowl

28 Cal. App. 2d 299 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 25, 1938

If the main fact is admitted with a qualifying exclusion of a necessary ingredient of the crime charged, the *311 crime is not confessed. … It certainly was error for the trial judge to exclude evidence of the defendant that would tend to establish that the confession was not voluntarily given.

Hicks v. Whelan Drug Co.

131 Cal. App. 2d 110 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 25, 1955

The rule is too well established to require the citation of precedents.” Second: Did the closing of the soda fountain and grill constitute a breach of the lease? No. … A right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage or favor ■ ... 2. A grant of a special right or immunity; a franchise or patent; as, a privilege of printing a book; a privilege granted a manor or town.”

Social Services Union v. Alameda County Training & Employment Board

207 Cal. App. 3d 1458 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 23, 1989

The arbitrator determined that by including section 14L in the MOU, the parties intended that if there were qualified existing employees, those employees were to be offered the promotional opportunities before the position … The Supreme Court reasoned that damages for breach were clearly part of the dispute arising from the agreement, and that even if the issue of damages had not been specifically submitted to the arbitrators, it was properly

Dignity Health v. Mounts

California Court of Appeal · Sep 17, 2024

(c)), reporting for which Dignity is immune under federal law (42 U.S.C. § 11137), or acts that are outside the one-year statute of limitations. (Code Civ. Proc., § 340.) … The common interest privilege is more qualified.

Lawson v. Turlock Union High School District

47 Cal. App. 252 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 28, 1920

The distinction established by the legislature is not an arbitrary one. There are sufficient differences between a location in a city and one in the country to justify the classification established in the amendment. … They are sufficient to justify the classification established in the amendment.

Migliavacca v. City of Napa

10 Cal. App. 383 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 10, 1909

Hartwell, 131 Cal. 263, 265 , [ 63 Pac. 349, 350 ], “to insure some degree of permanency, and to prevent frequent changes,” and that such is the constitutional policy established by the provision of the constitution concerned … Our conclusion is that all the proposed amendments submitted at the prior election, held on the twentieth day of January, 1909, having been defeated by the electors, the respondents are clearly within their rights, under

People v. Grayson

172 Cal. App. 2d 372 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 27, 1959

Even if it could be inferred that there was a possible illegal search and seizure in the present case, it is clearly established that this contention may not be raised for the first time on *379 appeal. … It is now clearly established by numerous decisions that the exclusionary rule of People v.

Alameda County Social Services Agency v. Paula T.

232 Cal. App. 4th 1284 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 9, 2015

court are appeals from proceedings in which the social services agency and the juvenile court disregarded the statutory mandate that preference in the placement of a child removed from the custody of his parents be given to qualified … A social services agency’s possession of broad discretion in making certain decisions does not render it immune from juvenile court review.

Allende v. Department of the California Highway Patrol

201 Cal. App. 4th 1006 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 9, 2011

ambiguous and there is no clear case or other persuasive authority on the subject, the statute’s contemporaneous construction by the administrative agency charged with enforcing it is entitled to great weight, unless it is clearly … The court held that the common law doctrine of *1014 voluntary payment and the statutory basis of governmental immunity preclude members of the Fixed Cost Class from recovering monetary relief for any overpayment.

People v. Jose T.

230 Cal. App. 3d 1455 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 5, 1991

Specifically, although appellant concedes, and we hold, that the attempted murder of Avila qualifies as a section 186.22, subdivision (e) predicate offense for the purpose of establishing “a pattern of criminal gang activity … It is clearly erroneous. 3 The juvenile court’s stay of the term for robbery, pursuant to section 654, was improper under the foregoing analysis.

Oakland Unified School Dist. v. Pub. Employment Relations Bd.

California Court of Appeal · Jul 2, 2025

Thus, public school employees, like every other public employee, have a qualified right to strike—including a qualified right to engage in unfair practice strikes—under the common law. … Even if these suggestions are not conclusive, they, at a minimum, establish that PERB did not clearly err when it concluded that such strikes are allowed under EERA. (See Boling, supra, 5 Cal.5th at p. 912.)

American Products Co. v. Law Offices of Geller, Stewart & Foley

37 Cal. Rptr. 3d 93 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 16, 2005

If the privilege is only conditional or qualified, a finding of malice will prevent the communication from being found privileged.’ [Citations.] [|] . . . … As noted, the conduct of defendants alleged in the complaint is clearly communicative and otherwise within the scope of section 47(b).

People v. Demery

104 Cal. App. 3d 548 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 14, 1980

We therefore hold that section 11154 of the Health and Safety Code is immune from constitutional attack. … Okun was clearly relevant to establish minimal requirements for “good faith” medical practice, including such basics as giving a physical examination to a patient before prescribing “controlled substances.”

People v. Rouse

245 Cal. App. 4th 292 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 29, 2016

The court struck the older of defendant‟s two prior strikes (a 1989 robbery conviction), finding that imposition of a life sentence would be “clearly disproportionate” to the underlying charged crimes. … Thus, there is no constitutional requirement that the facts be established beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Kaulick, at pp. 1304-1305; see also People v.