Case law

People Ex Rel. Webb v. Marsh

30 Cal. App. 424 · California Court of Appeal · May 11, 1916

Mahoney was the duly elected, qualified, and acting district attorney of San Diego County; that on said date he signed and delivered to C. H. … The silence of the statute in that regard should be construed to mean that the established common-law method still obtains.”

Longobardo v. Avco Corporation

California Court of Appeal · Jul 11, 2023

These basic principles gave rise to the well-known, long- established rule that “An order denying a motion for summary judgment is not appealable.” (Gloster v. … The majority wrote, “like qualified immunity accorded to government officials, the applicability of the GARA statute of repose is an important question which is resolved completely separate from the merits of the litigation

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.

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.

People v. Labarbera

89 Cal. App. 2d 639 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 12, 1949

One of the officers who testified qualified as an expert on the contents of certain exhibits found in the establishment and the lettering symbols and marks thereon as records and paraphernalia used in recording and registering … The use of the word “fine” instead of “reparation” has been condemned, but if the word “fine” clearly and definitely shows that it means “reparation” it may be so construed. (County of Los Angeles v.

Samarkand of Santa Barbara, Inc. v. County of Santa Barbara

216 Cal. App. 2d 341 · California Court of Appeal · May 20, 1963

Educational gifts are said, in Estate of Henderson, supra, 17 Cal.2d 853, at p. 858, to be “clearly charitable.” The authorities cited in the last quotation from that ease clearly support the text. … Our discussion of this point establishes that it constitutes no defense to the complaint.

1-800 CONTACTS, INC. v. Steinberg

132 Cal. Rptr. 2d 789 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 27, 2003

But arranging to communicate and setting up meetings are integral parts of conducting meetings, which the Supreme Court has termed “clearly within the scope of the privilege.” (Rubin v. … An exception to the agent’s immunity, for conduct undertaken for personal advantage, is consistent with the immunity rule, because pursuit of a personal interest renders the actor more than merely the agent of another.

Hudson v. County of Los Angeles

232 Cal. App. 4th 392 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 15, 2014

She sought, at a minimum, leave to amend to more clearly plead the Department’s mandatory duty to restore her employment as a deputy sheriff.12 (earlier taken off calendar by the court). … Although the retirement association had notice that he might qualify for a disability retirement allowance, it did not fully advise him of that option.

People v. Tokich

127 Cal. App. 2d 639 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 29, 1954

The claim that the corpus delicti was not established by proof, independent of defendant’s statements and admissions, and that accordingly the court erred in receiving them in evidence, is equally untenable. (People v. … It does not affirmatively appear from the officer’s testimony that immunity was offered defendant or Bellatich if defendant confessed or that defendant’s counsel made any objection to the admission of such confession in evidence

Levine v. Weis

80 Cal. Rptr. 2d 439 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 14, 1998

Where the defendant is the moving party, it bears the burden of showing that one or more elements of the cause of action cannot be established or that there is a complete defense. (Villa v. … Belanger determined that a school district was immune in part because any judgment would be satisfied out of state funds.

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.

People v. Grey

23 Cal. App. 3d 456 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 10, 1972

See involved a routine search of all business establishments to ferret out possible violations of the fire safety laws. … In neither case was the place involved of a kind differing from other residences and business establishments.

Kassan v. Bledsoe

252 Cal. App. 2d 810 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 25, 1967

It was clearly implied that he had received and used for his own benefit the sum of $500 drawn by a check on Fraser’s trust account in which Serdon funds were deposited although it was confirmed that he then knew Fraser had … “When the advice to the client is honestly, though mistakenly given by an attorney, the same immunity from liability for malicious prosecution should attach to him.” (Murdock v. Gerth, supra, 65 Cal.App.2d 170, 180 .)

Catanzarite Law Corp. v. Gordon Reese CA4/3

California Court of Appeal · Oct 15, 2013

Representing clients in settlement negotiations clearly qualifies as protected activity for anti-SLAPP purposes. (See, e.g., Thayer v. … Settlement discussions in ongoing litigation qualify 8 for the absolute immunity of the privilege. (See Genethera, Inc. v.

Hopkins v. Yellow Cab Co.

114 Cal. App. 2d 394 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 26, 1952

However, the current status of the law seems clearly to be that when a common carrier contracts to render a special service for a group of individuals or a public agency it thereupon becomes a private carrier. … Co., 228 U.S. 177, 185 [ 33 S.Ct. 474 , 57 L.Ed. 787 ], it was held that whereas a common carrier cannot secure immunity from liability for its negligence by contract, such rule is not applicable when the common carrier is

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.

Herrington v. Herrington

79 Cal. App. 2d 389 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 29, 1947

The justice of the holding in Estate of Baker is evident as an order or judgment clearly beyond the jurisdiction of the court making it should be open to attack. O’Day v. … Superior Court, supra, it appears that the purported heirs whose petition to establish heirship had been dismissed, filed a second petition to establish heirship which the trial court refused to hear.

Headen v. Miller

141 Cal. App. 3d 169 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 24, 1983

Beck, supra, 39 Cal.App.2d 355 , established the applicability of the ex *177 emption statute to alleged fraudulent conveyance actions. … Clearly a life insurance policy has a present value beyond its cash surrender value. The policy may be likened to a promissory note, payable in the future.

Highland Development Co. v. City of Los Angeles

170 Cal. App. 3d 169 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 17, 1985

The trial court’s orders respectively granting and denying WHCA’s and Highland’s applications for preliminary injunction are clearly appealable. (Code Civ. Proc., § 904.1, subd. (f).) … WHCA qualified as such a party under section 389, subdivision (a)’s provision for compulsory joinder of a person who “claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that the disposition of the

Brown v. Department of Veterans Affairs

178 Cal. App. 3d 392 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 4, 1986

Discussion Whenever a tort claim is made against a governmental agency the concept of governmental immunity arises. … The question of immunity, however, should not be addressed until it is first determined that the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiffs. (Williams v.