Case law

People v. Westmoreland

58 Cal. App. 3d 32 · California Court of Appeal · May 4, 1976

He also admitted that he personally talked with Robison’s attorney two or three times before the trial and once or twice during trial, and that Lanier’s request for immunity and the district attorney’s refusal to grant immunity … There is no immunity. [Thomas] is convicted, I think, of 10 counts. There was no promise made to him.” (Supra, 14 Cal.3d at p. 405, fn. 2 .)

Kesmodel v. Rand

15 Cal. Rptr. 3d 118 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 28, 2004

California Federal Bank FSB 2 it is now clearly established citizen reports of suspected criminal activity to law enforcement personnel enjoy an absolute privilege of immunity from civil liability under section 47(b). … Moreover, and in contrast to the situation in Gomez, the evidence in the present case conclusively established the information the Rands provided the police was false and misleading.

People v. Cuellar

110 Cal. App. 2d 273 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 7, 1952

To this extent the evidence clearly showed the illegal possession in someone of the narcotic in question. … It is sufficient if the proof establishing the corpus delicti be of a substantial character.

People v. Thompson

68 Cal. App. 487 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 29, 1924

This was also qualified by his statement that the only literature he had read was a newspaper published by the I. W. W. … It does not clearly appear whether such statement was made at an authorized meeting of the organization.

McGlothlen v. Department of Motor Vehicles

71 Cal. App. 3d 1005 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 27, 1977

Mayor etc. of San Jose (1894) 104 Cal. 642 [ 38 P. 500 ], the court had expressed the same conclusion, but it qualified it as follows: “Legislatures and courts are not at liberty to disregard a policy so plainly manifested … Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or revoked.”

City and County of San Francisco v. Callanan

169 Cal. App. 3d 643 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 25, 1985

The qualified electors expressly state that they understand that benefits of employment are sometimes referred to as fringe benefits of employment and the qualified electors expressly reserve the right to either grant or … Clearly, this is not the intent or purpose of the charter provision reserving the right to grant such benefits to the electorate.

Platnauer v. Board of Supervisors

65 Cal. App. 666 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 21, 1924

Plaintiff alleged that he is a taxpayer and a qualified elector of the city of Sacramento; that for more than twenty *667 years he has been admitted to -practice law in the state of California; that he presented and filed … supervisors of the county in which such city is situated shall, as soon as is practicable after this amendment takes effect, make appointments in the manner provided by law, to fill such vacancies. ’ ’ From the foregoing it clearly

Stockton Kenworth, Inc. v. State Board of Equalization

157 Cal. App. 3d 334 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 19, 1984

An engine installed in an aircraft which is flown directly out of the state for use solely thereafter outside the state does not qualify for the exclusion. … It is equally established, *338 however, that a board or commission may not adopt rules “which abridge, enlarge, extend or modify the statute creating the right.” (Am. Distilling Co. v. St.

Hawthorn v. City of Beverly Hills

111 Cal. App. 2d 723 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 17, 1952

The provision in section 4853 that after one year a city fireman shall be subject “as to disability indemnity” to the provisions of division IV other than section 4850, and that the leave of absence shall continue, clearly … held it did not; that, as provided in section 4851, it only had jurisdiction to determine whether the disability referred to in section 4850 arose out of and in the course of duty. 10 When the fact of disa *730 bility was established

Woolley v. Seijo

224 Cal. App. 2d 615 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 13, 1964

subsequent to the commencement of the action and after the court has acquired *621 personal jurisdiction over him, the entry of judgment against him is a “mere irregularity” which renders the judgment voidable only and therefore immune … In the present case, the trial court was clearly correct in finding that respondent had filed a timely and sufficient claim against the estate.

Drain v. Betz Laboratories, Inc.

81 Cal. Rptr. 2d 864 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 3, 1999

The position must be clearly inconsistent so that one necessarily excludes the other. … on Prilliman’s grounding and lack of reemployment by United in a flight qualified position, matters as to which there is no dispute herein. . . .

People v. Diaz

101 Cal. App. 3d 440 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 28, 1980

We conclude that even under the most compliant construction of relevant constitutional principles immunizing personal containers from warrantless searches, no reasonable expectation of privacy attaches to such a vessel or … the absence of any reasonable privacy expectations in the contents of an ordinary cup and the existence of probable cause and exigent circumstances. *445 Validity of Warrantless Search The Automobile It is now generally established

Johnson v. Pratt & Whitney Canada, Inc.

28 Cal. App. 4th 613 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 24, 1994

The statute clearly involves an assessment of credibility by the trial court. … “The trial judge precluded [the statutory immunity] defense on the ground that steps to warn against the dangerous condition were necessarily intertwined with the circumstances establishing the dangerous condition and were

People v. Tuggle

203 Cal. App. 4th 1071 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 24, 2012

“A person is qualified to testify as an expert if he has special knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education sufficient to qualify him as an expert on the subject to which his testimony relates. … “Error regarding a witness’s qualifications as an expert will be found only if the evidence shows that the witness ‘ “ ‘clearly lacks qualification as an expert.’ ” ’ ” (People v.

Hui v. Sturbaum

222 Cal. App. 4th 1109 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 9, 2014

Hui‟s claims” because the conversation was covered by the qualified common interest privilege set forth in Section 47, subdivision (c). … The evidence favorable to the plaintiff is accepted as true, while the defendant‟s evidence is evaluated to determine if it defeats the plaintiff‟s claim as a matter of law, e.g., on grounds of privilege or immunity.

United Indian Health etc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. CA1/5

California Court of Appeal · May 20, 2025

According to its bylaws, United Indian’s 1 United Indian does not contend that it qualifies as a “ ‘tribal organization’ ” under the Indian Self-Determination Act as a “legally established organization of Indians … However, the ALJ’s overall assessment remained 8 that United Indian had failed to establish its entitlement to sovereign immunity.

Herting v. State Department of Health Care Services

235 Cal. App. 4th 607 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 27, 2015

The qualifying trust is described in this regulation as “A trust established on or after August 11, 1993, which meets all of the following conditions: [¶] (A) A trust, or portion of a trust, that contains the assets of an … Clearly its central purpose was to ensure the availability of resources 5 for Alexandria’s care, not to serve as an estate-planning device.

Shamsian v. Department of Conservation

39 Cal. Rptr. 3d 62 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 7, 2006

With respect to a public entity such as the department, Government Code section 815.6 allows an exception to governmental immunity and creates a private right of action where there is a mandatory duty to protect against the … Plaintiff contends the Legislature clearly expected the department would be sued to enforce the act. We disagree.

In Re Fain

139 Cal. App. 3d 295 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 21, 1983

Thus, the prior court actions following the 1977 decision are clearly not res judicata. … The trial court’s finding in this regard is clearly correct.

People v. Davis

189 Cal. App. 3d 1177 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 26, 1987

However, I also am convinced appellant failed to establish a prima facie showing of discriminatory exclusion. Consequently, I still support affirmance of the conviction. … We essentially sanction any explanation no matter how careless the prosecutor may be with the truth or how unbiased and otherwise qualified the excluded minority juror or jurors may have been.