Case law

In Re Reina

171 Cal. App. 3d 638 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 26, 1985

Subdivision (i) as a part of the classification manual was formulated on the authority of the Director of Corrections as established in the California Penal Code. (CDC Classification Manual, § 101.) … Subdivision (i) is clearly intended to prevent unfairness to prisoners transferred for administrative reasons over which they have no control. 1 It would not be unreasonable to conclude that the incentive to rehabilitate

Maheu v. CBS, INC.

201 Cal. App. 3d 662 · California Court of Appeal · May 24, 1988

[a work] even if it fails to achieve Federal statutory copyright because it is too minimal or lacking in originality to qualify, or because it has fallen into the public domain.’ H.R.Rep. … established. *676 B.

Kind and Compassionate v. City of Long Beach

California Court of Appeal · Aug 4, 2016

The CUA and the MMP have a “narrow reach” (Riverside, at p. 745), providing only “a limited immunity from specified state marijuana laws” (id. at p. 748). … Our conclusion is controlled by now well-established principles: “[The CUA and the MMP] remove state-level criminal and civil sanctions from specified medical marijuana activities, but they do not establish a comprehensive

John Siebel Associates v. Keele

188 Cal. App. 3d 560 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 31, 1986

In terms of enforceability, however, it was a conditional, qualified judgment on April 6, 1981. … Siebel’s claim was not inconclusive; the judgment of April 6 clearly defined its rights.

People v. Parks

32 Cal. App. 3d 143 · California Court of Appeal · May 8, 1973

to establish that he committed it beyond a reasonable doubt. … “In sum, it seems quite clear that the rule enunciated in Griffin was not intended to require that the trier of the fact, whether judge or jury, be immunized against any dictate of plain reason.

Muething v. Franchise Tax Board

52 Cal. App. 4th 275 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 27, 1997

The plain language of the statutes clearly indicates gain from the sale of Nicolet stock is not exempt from the preference tax. … To qualify as small business stock, the stock must meet the definition established in section 18162.5, subdivision (e) at the time of acquisition.

Wilson v. Los Angeles County Civil Service Commission

95 Cal. App. 2d 51 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 12, 1949

The eligible list established by the commission for the position of county clerk does not set forth the names of the successful candidates in the order of their standing in examination, but sets forth their names in an order … Clearly the court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to issue the writ.

Ruth v. Kizer

8 Cal. App. 4th 380 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 23, 1992

“Investigational services” are subject to a qualified exclusion from coverage. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 22, §§ 51303, subd. (h).) … Where such oxygen use is investigational, it is subject to qualified exclusion.

In Re Bodkin

86 Cal. App. 2d 208 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 15, 1948

The ordinance is attacked as unconstitutional in that it is an abridgment of the rights of free speech and assembly, and is a violation of the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. … It was established in this case that the passage of some members of the public along the street was in fact obstructed. If nobody had desired to use this street at the time another question would be presented.

Bedard v. City of Los Angeles

California Court of Appeal · Oct 31, 2024

The Board stated it had reviewed Bedard’s personnel file and that she was a highly qualified and excellent employee. … This refusal alone clearly violated the ordinance’s vaccination requirement and the Notice’s requirements enforcing the ordinance.

Hamilton v. Superior Court

37 Cal. App. 3d 418 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 21, 1974

Subdivisions 2 and 4, providing, respectively, for transfers where an impartial trial cannot be had and where no judge of the court is qualified to act, are clearly not applicable nor have they been relied upon by real party … When from any cause there is no judge of the court qualified to act. 5.

Vassallo v. Lowrey

178 Cal. App. 3d 1210 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 24, 1986

Section 87414 clearly establishes a single date for purposes of seniority. Section 87743 protects seniority and tenure rights by incorporating section 87414 without change. … *1216 Appellant contends that she is qualified to teach mathematics and chemistry.

Los Angeles City School District v. Superior Court

9 Cal. App. 3d 459 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 8, 1970

Plaintiff therein contended that his cause of action arising in 1950 was not recognized because of the doctrine of sovereign immunity prior to the decision in Muskopf v. … Prior to its repeal in 1965 section 912 clearly qualified as a “claims statute.” It is instructive to compare it with its successor, section 946.6, in several respects.

Brock & Co. v. Board of Supervisors

32 Cal. App. 2d 550 · California Court of Appeal · May 8, 1939

taxes thereon were not *555 violative of the due process of law or the equal protection of the law provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, or contrary to petitioner’s rights and immunities … The evidence clearly shows that appellant intended that the jewelry should be displayed during the height of the winter season in Honolulu with the hope of making sales thereof to wealthy residents to whom it was shown, and

Akopiantz v. Board of Medical Examiners

146 Cal. App. 2d 331 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 28, 1956

that he is qualified educationally for a reciprocity certificate, under section 2310 of the Business and Professions Code”; and (2) That the “petitioner has sufficient educational training and experience to qualify for an … One *335 says the applicant has not shown he is “ qualified educationally” for a reciprocity certificate; the other, that he has sufficient “educational training and experience to qualify” for the examination.

Division of Labor Law Enforcement Department of Industrial Relations v. Safeway Stores, Inc.

96 Cal. App. 2d 481 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 15, 1950

A weekly salary, as established by the Distribution Division Manager. “2. A quarterly bonus based on Meat Section sales, providing he qualified as hereinafter outlined. … In the period involved in *485 1947, the increase of $20 per week in the minimum wages, as established by the union contract, was treated as a payment in excess of the base pay established by defendant in its bulletin and

Martin v. Bridgeport Community Assn., Inc.

173 Cal. App. 4th 1024 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 7, 2009

Section 1364 clearly differentiates between an owner and residents such as the Martins. … The Martins failed to establish standing under any of the other arguments they advanced.

Donorovich-Odonnell v. Harris

241 Cal. App. 4th 1118 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 29, 2015

Clearly they can." The court characterized the issue as "whether there is a constitutional right to have an assisted suicide with concomitant immunity to the assisting party." … The court believed the issue was for the Legislature, and "the answer is not to declare a statute [section 401], which is clearly constitutional, unconstitutional."

Monterey Club v. Superior Court

48 Cal. App. 2d 131 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 28, 1941

The rights of the people to be protected and immunized from a nuisance affecting the public well-being where such nuisance exists, are such that in granting a temporary injunction upon sufficient allegations contained in … The lack of authority of the courts to resort to equity for the purpose of justifying action of the character taken by the court in the instant case is clearly established in People v.

Magliulo v. Superior Court

47 Cal. App. 3d 760 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 30, 1975

(Hull) (1952) 38 Cal.2d 659, 671 [ 242 P.2d 311 ] [qualified by subdivision (g) of section 3600, and Mathews v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd., supra, 6 Cal.3d 719, 728-737 ]; Hanna, Cal. … But, as already noted, the ‘exclusive remedy’ provisions of section 3601 nowhere extend the employer’s immunity to cover the compensation insurer.