Case law

Winzler & Kelly v. Department of Industrial Relations

121 Cal. App. 3d 120 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 17, 1981

Clearly, the coverage determination in dispute amounted to a standard of general application because it had a statewide impact and applied not only to the individual firm to which it was addressed but also to all public entities … Section 11380, subdivision (a)(1) exempts regulations which inter alia “[establishes or fixes rates, prices or tariffs.”

People v. Keding CA1/1

California Court of Appeal · Dec 26, 2013

The CUA does not grant immunity from arrest for those crimes, however. … Thus, his status as a “qualified patient” under the CUA and MMP did not immunize him from reasonable police investigations or searches. (People v. Strasburg, supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 1058.)

Gordon v. Board of Education

78 Cal. App. 2d 464 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 10, 1947

large discretion in determining what is for the public good and what are public purposes for which public moneys can be rightfully expended and that discretion connot be controlled by the courts except, when its action is clearly … Even if State action .stops short of the imposition of disabilities, and confines itself to favouring a particular church, whether by grants of money or by giving special immunities to its clergy, this is an infringement

In Re Farr

64 Cal. App. 3d 605 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 6, 1976

different and independent acts—unlawful interference with a lawful order of the court, and willful refusal to answer 13 questions concerning the identity of the attorneys of record who gave him the Graham transcript—which are clearly … 1971, acquittal, and Judge Older’s findings and order adjudging contempts; sentence pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1218; order of commitment, resulting in the imposition of punitive sentence on August 6, 1974, establishes

Gee v. Timineri

248 Cal. App. 2d 139 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 26, 1967

Carr; there was no certification on the statement establishing that it was the product of an audit procedure or that it was an accurate summary of the pertinent records. … The statement was ruled by the Supreme Court to be inadmissible hearsay which did not qualify as a business record.

Rosenberg v. Wittenborn

178 Cal. App. 2d 846 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 16, 1960

The two points that I specifically brought out, the speed and the condition of the signal as he entered the intersection, are clearly, in my mind, an admission against interest which can *850 be testified to regardless of … In arriving at this conclusion we are not unmindful of the well established and salutary rule which clothes the trial court with broad discretionary powers in the consideration and determination of motions of this character

Swaithes v. Superior Court

212 Cal. App. 3d 1082 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 2, 1989

Failure to complete discovery or other pretrial matters does not affect the absolute substantive right to trial preference for those litigants who qualify for preference under subdivision (a) of section 36. … Elderly litigants are clearly entitled to have their case effectively tried and to the opportunity to enjoy during their own lifetime any benefits received.

People v. MERFIELD

54 Cal. Rptr. 3d 834 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 21, 2007

Three of the original criteria “concern past events that once established, are incapable of change.” (People v. Francis, supra, 98 Cal.App.4th at p. 879 .) … Moreover, while we agree that his October 11, 2005, letter “clearly indicated his understanding that he retained his right to challenge his commitment . . . ,” he had the right at that time to file a petition challenging

Akopiantz v. Board of Medical Examiners

190 Cal. App. 2d 81 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 15, 1961

The court said: “It is apparent that the action of the board . . . does not show such a consistent course of admission of graduates of the school as to establish a de facto *88 or qualified approval. … Admission to practice in another state does not per se qualify for a reciprocity license in California.

People v. Triplett

California Court of Appeal · Feb 8, 2016

the published portion of this opinion, we conclude that in determining a defendant‟s eligibility for resentencing under the Act, the trial court may consider, in addition to the record of conviction, any facts the parties clearly … It created a new crime of shoplifting, “defined as entering a commercial establishment with intent to commit larceny while that establishment is open during regular business hours, where the value of the property that is

Pye v. Eagle Lake Lumber Co.

66 Cal. App. 584 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 16, 1924

Clearly, what the *591 “mill run” of a mill had been while delivering over a million and a half feet of lumber is some evidence of what it would be while sawing the next one million four hundred thousand feet. … Notwithstanding defendants’ knowledge of this contract, no privity was ever established between them and Swayne & Hoyt. Under these conditions Swayne & Hoyt were 'not necessary parties to this action.

Carden v. Board of Registration for Professional Engineers

174 Cal. App. 3d 736 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 28, 1985

Appellant argues that “full credit should be given to an individual as long as it can be established by a preponderance of the evidence that the primary function of his/her job is the accomplishment of qualified engineering … Code, § 6701.) 2 Section 6767 also required the board to establish a final filing date for applications “no later than three years following the adoption of regulations by the board establishing each such discipline.”

Laborde v. Aronson

112 Cal. Rptr. 2d 119 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 21, 2001

In sum, Aronson established a complete defense to the causes of action set forth in the first amended complaint. … Kramer, Levin, then, clearly supports the award of attorney fees under our circumstances.

City of Los Angeles v. Layton

269 Cal. App. 2d 567 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 10, 1969

Its charter was adopted by a majority of its qualified electors voting at a special election. … A con *572 struction in favor of the exercise of the power and against the existence of any limitation or restriction thereon which is not expressly stated in the charter is clearly indicated.

Estate of Gutierrez

189 Cal. App. 2d 165 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 15, 1961

If she makes a bequest which violates the rule against perpetuities [citation] or attempts to immunize a trust beneficiary’s income from claims of his creditors to an extent not recognized by statute [citation] or to defeat … “The opening words of the contested letter, to wit, ‘In case of my death,’ indicate clearly that the decedent intended thereby to direct the distribution of his estate in the event of his death.

Hooks v. City of Los Angeles CA2/8

California Court of Appeal · Jan 13, 2015

To that end, a qualified immunity from liability shall be provided for public entities and emergency rescue personnel providing emergency services. … immunity under Health and Safety Code section 1799.107.”

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

Curtis v. Super. Ct.

California Court of Appeal · Mar 24, 2021

Thus, because the qualified privilege applies, the “party seeking disclosure has the burden of establishing that denial of disclosure will unfairly prejudice the party in preparing its claim or defense or will result in injustice … Superior Court (1964) 231 Cal.App.2d 195, 202-203 [“[c]onsultation between expert and counsel may appropriately be given broad immunity from discovery” until the expert is called as a witness at trial and shown to be qualified

People v. Lofchie

229 Cal. App. 4th 240 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 27, 2014

The court concluded there was no such infringement, but found it unnecessary to “define precisely the extent of immunity, if any, which the University enjoys.” (Ibid.) … Courts have also concluded that a University construction project for student and staff housing was an internal university affair not subject to state prevailing wage laws because “[e]nsuring access to qualified students

Blank v. Palo Alto-Stanford Hospital Center

234 Cal. App. 2d 377 · California Court of Appeal · May 13, 1965

Hospital Assn. (1962) 58 Cal.2d 806 [ 26 Cal.Rptr. 640 , 376 P.2d 568 ] promulgated the rule “that antitrust legislation providing for treble damages should not be applied to the professions unless the language clearly calls … The opinion recognizes, however, that " There is an established *380 principle at common law that an action will lie where the right to pursue a lawful business, calling, trade, or occupation is intentionally interfered with