Case law

Dabis v. San Francisco Redevelopment Agency

50 Cal. App. 3d 704 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 19, 1975

RHA 7211.1 thus clearly comes within the rule of Thorpe and is binding upon the local agency. … Clearly, in the instant case, the instruction incorporating the higher standard of care of RHA 7211.1 merely qualified the general negligence instruction. 4 Thus, the agency’s contention that the instructions were contradictory

South Lake Tahoe Property etc. v. City of South Lake Tahoe

California Court of Appeal · Jun 20, 2023

Before us, plaintiff contends Measure T (1) unconstitutionally interferes with vested property rights; (2) creates an unconstitutional durational residency requirement to qualify for the exception to the ban; (3) exceeds … TRPA’s ordinances establish minimum standards applicable throughout the region.

Corrales v. Cal. Gambling Control Com.

California Court of Appeal · Jul 10, 2023

Due to CVMT 2020, Corrales is clearly on notice regarding the existence of those doctrines, and he has a duty to consider whether they apply to his currently pending lawsuit. … , not just challenges based on sovereign immunity.

Consumers Union of U.S., Inc. v. Alta-Dena Certified Dairy

4 Cal. App. 4th 963 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 18, 1992

Infants too are at a special risk from pathogens contained in RCM because their immune systems are immature and their stomachs lack a needed type of acid. … This is clearly incorrect. Both sections authorize the courts to “restore to any person in interest any money or property . . . which may have been acquired,” effectively granting broad restitutionary powers.

Taylor v. Ballard

41 Cal. App. 232 · California Court of Appeal · May 20, 1919

of a character to constitute or establish notice.” … The road and the house are clearly apparent from a photograph introduced in evidence on behalf of the plaintiff.

People v. Biehler

215 Cal. App. 2d 400 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 23, 1963

The uncontradicted evidence clearly shows that a window in Uncle Fred’s Swap Shop was broken; that a display case inside the shop was broken; that two or three guns were taken therefrom; and that someone had entered the shop … confession is voluntary, which reads as follows: “A statement of a defendant relative to the offense charged is involuntary when it is obtained by any sort of violence or threats, or by any direct or implied promises of immunity

Yee v. Mobilehome Park Rental Review Board

62 Cal. App. 4th 1409 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 18, 1998

Clearly, at any time there has been a lower profit from property than expected, some of the “beneficial use” of the property is lost, in the form of all the “beneficial use” of the profits. … In sum, Kavanau supports our conclusion the Yees have not suffered a regulatory taking: “Kavanau’s allegations, if true, are not sufficient to establish a taking ....

Worthington v. Davi

208 Cal. App. 4th 263 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 7, 2012

Relief will be granted unless clearly forbidden by statute. [Citation.] … and clearly came within the spirit and policy of the remedial statute.

Vallejo City Unified School Dist. v. Superior Court CA1/4

California Court of Appeal · Dec 30, 2025

Having established the school district’s common law duty to supervise, the majority rejected the district’s defense that the off-campus situs of the plaintiff’s injury ipso facto immunized it. … “[I]f not fairly termed dictum [citations], [the discussion] was a carefully qualified holding. It called the Legislature ‘principally concerned’ with before- and after-school travel to and from home. [Citation.]

Pena v. Municipal Court

96 Cal. App. 3d 77 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 16, 1979

However, the decision of the superior court in denying appellant’s petition for a writ was clearly based solely upon a review of those grounds raised in the trial court. … These policy reasons are applicable even if they sometimes have the incidental effect of providing immunity to the “malignant slanderer.” (Tiedemann v.

People v. Simmons

123 Cal. App. 3d 677 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 18, 1981

This argument fails because the statement was not qualified as such in accordance with the statutory rules set forth in that section. … Proof of the mere fact a witness is a neutral person without motive to falsify a statement is not sufficient to establish the trustworthiness foundation required under section 1237. (People v.

Las Virgenes Municipal Water District v. Dorgelo

154 Cal. App. 3d 481 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 13, 1984

Hence they cannot be issued unless they qualify under subdivision (b)’s exception to the rule of subdivision (a). … “Approval” is clearly a more inclusive notion than “election.” The drafters of Proposition 13 indicated that they understood the difference.

O'NEILL v. Novartis Consumer Health, Inc.

55 Cal. Rptr. 3d 551 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 27, 2007

They claim the court erroneously allowed respondent to present evidence which did not meet the admissibility standards established in People v. … and (2) the witness furnishing such testimony must be properly qualified as an expert to give an opinion on the subject.

South Lake Tahoe Property Owners Group v. City of South Lake Tahoe

California Court of Appeal · Jul 12, 2023

TRPA’s ordinances establish minimum standards applicable throughout the region. … Analysis Plaintiff has not established that Measure T unlawfully conflicts with the regional plan.

FRIENDS OF BAY MEADOWS v. City of San Mateo

68 Cal. Rptr. 3d 916 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 12, 2007

In light of the obvious overlap between the two actions, the trial court effected an informal consolidation by establishing a unified briefing schedule. … Based on the above, the Court finds there remain insufficient valid signatures on the petition to qualify the referendum.

Furman v. Department of Motor Vehicles

122 Cal. Rptr. 2d 520 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 19, 2002

Furman also argued that the DMV’s evidence did not establish that his blood had been drawn by a qualified individual in accordance with title 17. On October 2, 2000, the DMV suspended Furman’s driving privilege. … “Forensic alcohol laboratories and law enforcement agencies shall maintain records which clearly represent their activities which are covered by these regulations.” (Cal.

Steiner v. Superior Court

50 Cal. App. 4th 1771 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 26, 1996

Tahoe Planning Agcy. (1979) 440 U.S. 391, 406 [ 59 L.Ed.2d 401, 413 , 99 S.Ct. 1171 ] [absolute immunity *1785 for planning commissioners; immunity is needed to protect “the public good”].) 18 These corollaries of the separation … But well-established federal law supports the exception. (See Traweek v. City and County of San Francisco, supra, 659 F.Supp. at p. 1030 .)

People v. Field

168 Cal. App. 2d 269 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 26, 1959

for appellant filed herein in lieu of an opening brief shows that he represented the appellant in the superior court and “That at all times mentioned no force or threats was used upon defendant, nor was he promised any immunity … Code, section 1018 by reason of the mistake, ignorance, inadvertence or any factor that overcame the defendant’s exercise of a free judgment, the basis of the motion for relief ‘must be established by clear and convincing

County of San Diego v. Gibson

133 Cal. App. 2d 519 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 9, 1955

The contract here in question rather clearly appears to be one between the board and ‘‘a suitable facility” for the purpose of securing hospital service or a portion thereof, and involving treatment or the use of facilities … Under established principles it cannot be held that this contract provides for the corporate practice of medicine by the Foundation. (County of Los Angeles v.

Fahey v. County of Orange CA4/3

California Court of Appeal · Jan 25, 2016

Specifically, the appellant must show that the facts pleaded are sufficient to establish every element of a cause of 1 Were we to address these issues on the merits, they would be rejected. … The discomfort caused by the conditions he claims he suffered does not qualify. Further, any failure to treat any mental illness does not create a cause of action pursuant to the immunity provided under section 855.8.