Case law

McINDOE v. OLIVOS

33 Cal. Rptr. 3d 689 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 31, 2005

. *488 The no contest clause was located in the “general provisions” section of the trust document, which specified that all general provisions “apply to each trust established hereunder[.]” … The trustors’ “primary objective” was for the survivor’s trust to qualify for the marital deduction under Internal Revenue Code section 2056 ( 26 U.S.C. § 2056 ).

People v. Parker

33 Cal. App. 3d 842 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 6, 1973

At the hearing of the motion to dismiss respondent offered the oral testimony of some six qualified witnesses with respect to the subjects of human sexuality and behavior, marriage, family counseling and medicine and related … It was also established that films depicting acts of oral copulation are now being shown in numerous medical schools throughout the United States.

Alpha Therapeutic Corp. v. Home Ins. Co.

109 Cal. Rptr. 2d 698 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 13, 2002

The "assault on the immune system is immediate. The victim suffers from a sudden and serious decline in the number of white blood cells. There is no latency period.... … In the usual case, where injuries are clearly assignable to one policy or the other, the insured might fall below its aggregate cap in one policy but exceed it in the other.

Southern California Edison Co. v. State Water Resources Control Board

116 Cal. App. 3d 751 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 11, 1981

The Board, however, is not powerless to set equivalent standards to the high standards clearly contemplated by the language of the interim permit. … Since the Board’s showing in this respect is clearly inadequate its reliance on standard provision No. 6 is misplaced.

Adoption of X.D.

California Court of Appeal · Sep 29, 2025

After further exchange, the court asked once more, “But was the phone number of [Raymon] established? Did you establish this is his phone number?” … When the mother was approximately six months pregnant, the father filed a petition to establish a parental relationship and sought a DNA test to establish his paternity. (Ibid.)

People v. Nettles

California Court of Appeal · Oct 2, 2015

intent to commit rape was added to the definition of “sexually violent offense” in 2006 (compare Stats. 2000, ch. 643, § 1, pp. 4192-4194 with Stats. 2006, ch. 337, § 53, pp. 2660-2663), section 1170.126, subdivision (e), clearly … established at the time he [or she] was originally sentenced.”

In Re Evans

49 Cal. App. 4th 1263 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 3, 1996

Assuming that the issue was properly raised in the format chosen by petitioner, he failed to establish by competent evidence that he would not have entered the plea had he known of the future consequence. … There is clearly no legislative policy against offering an avenue of relief from the firearms prohibition.

People v. Farley

19 Cal. App. 3d 215 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 11, 1971

Even if the sale were made by Esser, however, the evidence was clearly sufficient to conclude that appellant was an accomplice and therefore chargeable as a principal. … At trial counsel for appellant stipulated that the Bureau chemist was qualified as an expert in the field of analysis and identification of narcotics.

Charlie L. v. Kangavari

California Court of Appeal · Jan 2, 2025

text-based arguments.6 6 In response to the amici’s brief, plaintiff cites section 1317, which grants “members of [a licensed health facility’s] rescue team,” who are specially “trained in cardiopulmonary resuscitation,” immunity … The proponent of each expert bears the burden of establishing its expert’s qualifications. (Zavala, supra, 16 Cal.App.4th at p. 1763; accord, Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd.

Lowell v. Mother's Cake & Cookie Co.

79 Cal. App. 3d 13 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 22, 1978

Elliott (1962) 208 Cal.App.2d 275, 279 [ 25 Cal.Rptr. 217 ]), thus clearly establish that respondent intentionally interfered with a prospective advantageous business relationship, and that the interference resulted in substantial … At the same time respondent fails to qualify for an ipso jure privilege under Restatement of Torts, section 769, as well.

Hayes v. Commission on State Mandates

11 Cal. App. 4th 1564 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 30, 1992

On remand the board clearly applied the now-discredited criteria set forth in this court’s decision in City of Sacramento v. … In 1990 Congress responded by expressly abrogating state sovereign immunity under the act. ( 20 U.S.C. § 1403 .) 14 In Smith v.

Doran v. Biscailuz

128 Cal. App. 2d 55 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 11, 1954

(Chapter 4 provides for the establishment of the County Peace Officers Retirement System and chapter 5 of the Government Code provides for the establishment of the County Fire Service Retirement System.) … Dunbar (1877), 52 Cal. 36, 41 , cited by respondent, holds clearly that an unsuccessful candidate at an election cannot be held to have been elected when the successful candidate is found to be ineligible.

Henderson v. Newport-Mesa Unified School District

214 Cal. App. 4th 478 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 13, 2013

One cannot qualify for a coaching position simply by possessing a teaching credential. … Significantly, the documents of which the District sought judicial notice in support of its demurrer do not establish anything to the contrary.

Reyes v. Board of Supervisors

196 Cal. App. 3d 1263 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 19, 1987

It clearly includes all individuals potentially affected by the challenged administrative sanctioning process. (Compare Employment Development Dept. v. … Consequently, unless the unmanageability of the class action is essentially without dispute or clearly established, it should not foreclose class certification.

Smith v. Shankman

208 Cal. App. 2d 177 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 3, 1962

Gidney (1937) 10 Cal.2d 138, 146-147 [ 73 P.2d 1186 ], where the court stated that “the evil, if any, [in the California rule] is established in this state by the legislative authority, and can only be cured by amendment. … To the contrary, the overall effect of these instructions, which are to a large degree repetitive, in our appraisal thereof tended to clothe the doctor in a cloak of legal immunity in the eyes of the jury.

Ruelas v. Harper CA4/2

California Court of Appeal · Oct 20, 2015

Qualified Immunity Harper and Ruiz argue that they were entitled to qualified immunity because plaintiffs failed to establish their conduct violated clearly established federal constitutional or statutory law … Analysis Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity for their actions unless the plaintiff shows that their conduct violated clearly established federal constitutional or statutory law of which a reasonable

Filipino Accountants' Ass'n v. State Board of Accountancy

155 Cal. App. 3d 1023 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 25, 1984

In passing the Civil Rights Attorneys’ Fees Act, Congress exercised its power under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to set aside the *1031 states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity from retroactive relief. (Hutto v. … And clearly Congress was not limited to awarding fees only when a constitutional or civil rights claim is actually decided.

Southern California Edison Co. v. Super. Ct.

California Court of Appeal · May 31, 2024

If material is entitled to only qualified work product protection, the party seeking the material “has the burden of establishing that denial of disclosure will unfairly prejudice the party in preparing its claim or defense … In addition, plaintiffs asserted in their motion to compel that they “forced SCE to produce the fault records that clearly demonstrate SCE equipment started the Creek Fire.” 23 not establish

Brancati v. Cachuma Village, LLC

California Court of Appeal · Oct 16, 2023

Here we decide an expert is qualified to render an opinion on whether a person’s exposure to toxic mold is harmful. … Dept. of Social Service (La.Ct.App. 2003) 849 So.2d 724, 733 [genuine issue of material fact where in a dispute between experts, one doctor said mold was “capable of compromising the immune system”].)

In Re Van Heflin

58 Cal. App. 3d 131 · California Court of Appeal · May 10, 1976

Buccheri (1969) 2 Cal.App.3d 842 [ 83 Cal.Rptr. 221 ], adheres to the established rule prior to 1966 (p. 845), but is distinguished in Griggs v. … The penalty for a violation of section 11500.5 without a qualifying prior was 5 to 15 years with eligibility for parole after completing service of 2‘A years.