Case law

Coates v. Shell Western E & P, Inc.

5 Cal. App. 4th 904 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 22, 1992

motion which comply with section 437c and establish the moving party is entitled to judgment, (de Echeguren v. de Echeguren (1962) 210 Cal.App.2d 141, 147 [ 26 Cal.Rptr. 562 ].) … However, as one can see, Cal Cut offers very little guidance as to how to interpret the statute as applied to the facts of the instant case and is clearly *915 distinguishable.

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.

Nesson v. Northern Inyo County Local Hospital District

204 Cal. App. 4th 65 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 10, 2012

V PROBABILITY OF PREVAILING Once the Hospital establishes its conduct warrants anti-SLAPP protection, the burden shifts to Nesson to produce evidence to establish a probability of prevailing on the merits of his claims. … However, his duties and responsibilities under the Agreement are not clearly segregated between clinical and nonclinically related functions.

Denton v. City of Fullerton

233 Cal. App. 3d 1636 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 27, 1991

Although the facts as alleged may establish that [the plaintiff], or indeed any other woman using the laundromat, was a reasonably foreseeable victim as in Tarasoff , that factor alone does not suffice to establish a special … The Court of Appeal held these facts were sufficient to establish the highway patrolman owed a duty to plaintiff. “Clearly plaintiff was dependent upon [the] [o]fficer . . . .” (Mann v.

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

Ewing v. County of Los Angeles CA2/4

California Court of Appeal · Jul 22, 2024

The court found the prior convictions qualified as strikes and sentenced Ewing to a third strike sentence of 25 years to life. … Nor do they establish any liability for negligence. As Ewing recognizes, governmental tort liability must be based on statute. (B.H. v. County of San Bernardino (2015) 62 Cal.4th 168, 179.)

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.

Kemper v. County of San Diego CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · May 13, 2013

Under section 1983, government officials are generally entitled to "qualified immunity," which "shields [them] from liability for civil damages if (1) the law governing the official's conduct was clearly established; and … Assuming these facts to be true, defendants would not be entitled to qualified immunity.

People v. Keo

California Court of Appeal · Sep 23, 2019

He urges us to find the statements were privileged, even if they do not qualify as testimony, to protect his due process rights because he was forced to choose between protection of his parental interests in the dependency … (See In re D.C. (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 41, 57 [immunity for statements made in court- ordered therapy]; In re Joanna Y. (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 433, 441 [immunity for statements made during court-ordered psychological evaluation

Lak v. Lak

California Court of Appeal · Jun 12, 2020

Accordingly, the second element clearly includes all obligors who receive SSI benefits (having met the SSI resource test to qualify for those benefits). … As discussed above, the 25/50 rule applied unless Father (1) established he qualified for the five percent rule or (2) the court ordered a specific arrears payment.

People v. Brandon G.

73 Cal. Rptr. 3d 273 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 7, 2008

A person may testify as an expert if he has special knowledge, skill, experience, education, or training sufficient to qualify him. (Evid. Code, § 720; People v. … [Citations.] “ ‘It is an established canon of interpretation that statutes are not to be given a retrospective operation unless it is clearly made to appear that such was the legislative intent.’ ” [Citations.]’ ” (Estate

Republic Indem. Co. of America v. Barn Furniture Mart, Inc.

248 Cal. App. 2d 517 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 14, 1967

Since minor children of “either spouse” in many instances are “residents of the same household,” the failure of the Legislature to exempt them from the governing provisions of subdivision (h) is clearly persuasive of the … According to defendants, however, Artukovich can be justified primarily on the then prevailing doctrine of governmental immunity which has since been abandoned in this state. (Muskopf v.

People v. Kevin F.

239 Cal. App. 4th 351 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 10, 2015

The court also looked to pattern jury instructions and Black’s Law Dictionary, all of which defined dangerous and deadly weapons, concluding that the term “dangerous or deadly weapon” was well-defined and “clearly established … This generally follows the established Raleigh two-step test for dangerous or deadly weapons.

Padres L.P. v. Henderson

8 Cal. Rptr. 3d 584 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 15, 2004

As noted above, however, the trial court's summary judgment ruling, standing alone, does not suffice as a prima facie showing *604 that Henderson's attempt in Zoebisch to qualify the Bond Ordinance initiative lacked probable … II PETITION IMMUNITY In addition to my disagreement with the majority's probable cause holding, I also disagree with the broad categorical exception to petition immunity my colleagues have created for private parties who

People v. Yates

California Court of Appeal · Jul 23, 2018

Compliance with a subpoena duces tecum may dispense with the need for a live witness to establish the business records exception if the records are produced by the custodian or other qualified witness, together with the affidavit … By filing a motion in limine to exclude certain expert testimony under Sanchez, Yates’s counsel clearly demonstrated familiarity with Sanchez’s prohibition on an expert’s recitation of case-specific hearsay.

People v. Johnson

96 Cal. App. 4th 188 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 14, 2002

Therefore, the imposition of the three strikes terms for Johnson’s other current convictions were proper and clearly mandated by the language of section 667, subdivisions (b) through (i). B. … Subdivision (f) essentially defines the extent of the term for that one qualifying count.

BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION ETC. v. Wilson

57 Cal. App. 4th 967 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 18, 1997

Thus, it is a “well-established rule that subordinate political entities, as ‘creatures’ of the state, may not challenge state action as violating the entities’ rights under the due process or equal protection clauses of … Here, PERS’s pleadings did not clearly allege a section 1983 claim, because the pleadings alleged claims by a state agency against its own state through state officials acting in their official capacity.