Case law

Reiter v. Sonoma County Sheriff's Dept. CA1/5

California Court of Appeal · May 7, 2014

Reiter did not file an action based on his damage claim “because he . . . concluded damages are barred based on qualified immunity[.]” … immunity from damage claims.

People v. Elizabeth S.

138 Cal. App. 3d 450 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 7, 1982

The record clearly indicates that reimbursement was imposed as one of the conditions of the minor’s release to the custody of her mother. … The court did not impose any fine on the minor, although it clearly had the authority to do so.

Haggerty v. County of Kings

117 Cal. App. 2d 470 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 28, 1953

No person is immune from prosecution in good faith for his alleged criminal acts. … The court held that, as such, the ordinance was clearly invalid as a prior restraint on the exercise of first amendment rights and that there were no standards prescribed for the exercise of his discretion.

Parmett v. Superior Court

212 Cal. App. 3d 1261 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 7, 1989

But more importantly, second, a legislatively provided privilege immunizes from discovery regardless of the importance of the concealed information to another’s interests. … Clearly the privacy protection would not be worth much if it could be avoided by getting the information from third parties.

People v. Martin

135 Cal. App. 3d 710 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 14, 1982

Thus, Martin’s reliance on Musser is clearly misplaced. 2. There is insufficient evidence to establish that Martin is guilty of conspiracy to obstruct justice. … The dispositions in Brown’s cases were contrary to Martin’s established practices and contrary to the established policies of the district attorney’s office.

Gigax v. Ralston Purina Co.

136 Cal. App. 3d 591 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 15, 1982

A “subsidiary” corporation is clearly defined in the law. (See Corp. Code, §§ 181, 1001, 1200.) … Continental Can Co. (1979) 171 N.J.Super. 148 [ 408 A.2d 146, 148 ], the parent corporation sought immunity from suit by claiming employer status.

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

People v. Botkin

9 Cal. App. 244 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 29, 1908

This clearly cured any error that may have been committed in the manner of their proof in the first instance. … Winthrop, 118 Cal. 85 , [ 50 Pac. 390 ], and clearly was in no sense erroneous. 7.

Homan v. Gomez

37 Cal. App. 4th 597 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 4, 1995

If a statute embraces a subject not expressed in its title, only the part not expressed is void. . . .” 3 The single subject rule essentially requires that a statute have only one subject matter and that the subject be clearly … The budget restriction at issue here amends the regulations which provide for family leave for all qualified prisoners “limited only by the institution/facility resources or security policy.” (Cal.

Sawyer v. First City Financial Corp.

124 Cal. App. 3d 390 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 8, 1981

In the first suit the action was dismissed without a trial of the substantive issues on the ground that the corporation had never qualified to do business in California with the result that the contract upon which the suit … that immunity would carry forward a little bit to the incidental activity of dividing up the loot among the robbers, if they’d already been given an overriding immunity against the consequences of the robbery.

Cuiellette v. City of Los Angeles

194 Cal. App. 4th 757 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 22, 2011

For purposes of an alleged failure reasonably to accommodate a disability, a “plaintiff proves he or she is a qualified individual by establishing that he or she can perform the essential functions of the position to which … For purposes of a claimed failure reasonably to accommodate a disability, a “plaintiff proves he or she is a qualified individual by establishing that he or she can perform the essential functions of the position to which

People v. Bradford

227 Cal. App. 4th 1322 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 15, 2014

The test presupposes the adjudicated crime includes some elements that may, but do not necessarily, establish that it qualifies as a strike under California law. (See id. at pp. 453-454; People v. … , and there is no evidence to clearly establish they were being carried for use as a weapon.

CIT Group/Equipment Financing, Inc. v. Super DVD, Inc.

8 Cal. Rptr. 3d 927 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 30, 2004

Appellants contend the contract in this case does not qualify because at the time the contract was executed there were too many uncertainties regarding the amount of damages. … Appellants assert the declaration fails to clearly state the remedies CIT selected. This contention is without merit.

Bohanon v. James McClatchy Publishing Co.

16 Cal. App. 2d 188 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 21, 1936

However, it clearly appears from the language at page 353 of the cited decision that the Publishing Company gave its written consent to the various transfers of the route whereby the lessor, Mrs. … The newspaper route which forms the subject of the agreement is therefore definitely limited by the qualifying and descriptive word “Automobile”.

Sher v. Leiderman

181 Cal. App. 3d 867 · California Court of Appeal · May 29, 1986

Does any south-facing window in any home qualify as a solar collector? What in fact is a “south-facing” window? … This clearly extends the scope of the Act to absurd proportions.

Dible v. Haight Ashbury Free Clinics, Inc.

170 Cal. App. 4th 843 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 26, 2009

They certainly qualify as statements made “before a legislative, executive, or judicial proceeding, or any other official proceeding” (§ 425.16, subd. … Even if plaintiff’s claim of intent is correct, it simply further establishes her claim as one covered by the statute since “institutional problems” at the county jail are clearly matters of public concern. (§ 425.16, subd

Hops v. Poe

25 Cal. App. 451 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 12, 1914

Section 4 of “An act to provide for the regulation of the traffic in alcoholic liquors by establishing local option” (Stats. 1909, p. 599) directs the clerk within ten days after filing such petition, if he is satisfied itfis … Roberts, 145 Cal. 173 , [ 78 Pac. 537 ], was clearly a different case.

Crown City Lodge, I. O. O. F., No. 395 v. Industrial Accident Commission

10 Cal. App. 2d 83 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 8, 1935

F., #395 who is a qualified journeyman or helper in the City of Pasadena, but will insist on furnishing the foreman to represent our firm as well as satisfying the City of Pasadena Inspection Department. ’ ’ Before said bid … In that connection, the agreement between the parties, as hereinbefore has been substantially set forth, very clearly indicates that (paraphrasing the language in 13 Cal.

Park v. Bd. of Trustees of CA State Univ.

California Court of Appeal · Aug 27, 2015

As such, CSU has met its burden to establish that its statements made in connection with Park’s RTP process qualify as protected conduct under section 425.16, subdivision (e)(2). 2. … “Arising From” Having established its qualifying communicative conduct, CSU must also show that Park’s claims arise out of that protected activity.

Swanson v. Morongo Unif. School Dist.

California Court of Appeal · Dec 30, 2014

This step is designed to eliminate at the outset the most patently meritless claims, as where the plaintiff is not a member of the protected class or was clearly unqualified, or where the job he sought was withdrawn and never … Cal.App.4th 1376, 1384 (Spitzer).) 16  The elements of a failure to accommodate claim are “(1) the plaintiff has a disability under the FEHA, (2) the plaintiff is qualified