Case law

Wheeler v. California Department of Employment

193 Cal. App. 2d 829 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 19, 1961

It follows that, since appellant’s work was insufficient to make him “regularly employed” as that term is used in section 640, he was not entitled to credit for the wages received for this work in establishing his benefits … The answer to this contention is that the record clearly indicates *834 that Stevenson qualified as an “ employer ’ ’ within the meaning of that section on the basis of “wages for employment” which were paid to those carpenters

People v. Webster

13 Cal. App. 348 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 29, 1910

beyond a reasonable doubt was so often and clearly stated to the jury, that they must have understood his right in that behalf. … Morine, 61 Cal. 369 , where the same instruction was considered, to say that other instructions given qualify and explain the objectionable instruction, and that the charge read as a whole correctly presents the law on the

Soliz v. California Highway Patrol CA5

California Court of Appeal · May 29, 2025

Lombardi did not negligently interfere with paramedics, since Plaintiff was intoxicated and his ability to make decisions was not clearly established. … Defendants advanced a theory involving the immunity The foregoing discussion clearly establishes that defendants advanced a theory of the case during the trial in which the immunity played a role.

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.

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.

People v. Purata

42 Cal. App. 4th 489 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 1, 1996

In Flanagan , the court noted that the opinions in Baldwin and its progeny had applied their rule to facts which would clearly have supported a finding of the specific intent to kill, and thus labeled the Baldwin statements … Saille (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1103, 1113 [ 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 364 , 820 P.2d 588 ], discussing § 188 [“[0]nce the trier of fact finds a deliberate intention unlawfully to kill, no other mental state need be shown to establish malice

People v. Stoliker

192 Cal. App. 2d 263 · California Court of Appeal · May 18, 1961

Under the free exercise of this rule, no right or immunity granted by the constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, is invaded or impaired. ’ ” (United States ex rel. Moses v. Kipp, 232 F.2d 147, 150 .) … Finally, the court held (p. 657) . . that the custody and control of the United States Marshal, and of the United States court, over the petitioner was temporary and that the Marshal acted in accordance with the established

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

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.

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.

County of Los Angeles v. Beverley

126 Cal. App. 2d 89 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 17, 1954

Wents’ testimony, if qualified, was admissible to show what in his opinion the entire property was worth including mineral rights having in mind all the uses to which the property could be put. … J., and Fox, J., concurred. 1 A judge presiding at the trial of a ease should rule promptly and clearly upon each and every objection or motion which is made by the attorneys, thus not only affording the parties the benefit

Roth v. Malson

79 Cal. Rptr. 2d 226 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 28, 1998

Plaintiff did not absolutely and clearly accept the counter offer.” (Original emphasis.) … Ten Winkel thus did not make variance of terms a sine qua non of a qualified acceptance.

San Diego Public Library Foundation v. Fuentes

California Court of Appeal · May 30, 2025

Under this authority, the City adopted an election code ordinance establishing procedures which apply to initiative petitions. (San Diego Mun. Code, Chpt. 2, Art. 7, Div. 10.) … However, the court concluded that it could only override the clerk’s decision if the similarities were undeniable or the rejection was clearly arbitrary. (Ibid.)

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.

People v. Childers

154 Cal. App. 2d 17 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 20, 1957

“Now, a confession is not voluntary when it has been obtained by any kind or degree of violence, abuse or threat, or by any direct or implied promise of immunity, leniency, or other benefit, or by any coaxing, cajoling, or … Their evidence clearly established the corpus delicti of the crime for which appellant was charged and convicted.

Pickens v. County of Riverside CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · May 19, 2023

Based on the above, we reject Pickens’s claim Sergeant Baeza was not entitled to qualified immunity under Penal Code section 847. … The respondents offer no authority to support the argument that a police officer who engages in the deliberate misconduct is entitled to qualified immunity with respect to false arrest.”

Kane v. City of Los Angeles CA2/7

California Court of Appeal · Aug 24, 2023

Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (10th ed. 1995) at page 1251 defines a trail as ‘a marked or established path or route. . . .’” (Italics added.) … (Farnham, at p. 1101; see Carroll, supra, 60 Cal.App.4th at p. 607 [class I bicycle path qualified as a trail under section 831.4]; Armenio v.

People v. Klempke

19 Cal. App. 672 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 17, 1912

In the case under consideration the court determined that such witness was not so qualified, and we cannot say that any abuse of this discretionary power is made to appear. … The commission of a crime by defendant was clearly established by positive evidence, and the motive therefore became unimportant. (People v. Besold, 154 Cal. 369 , [ 97 Pac. 871 ].)

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

In re Perdue

221 Cal. App. 4th 1070 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 2, 2013

Cartwright (1988) 486 U.S. 356, 361 [108 S.Ct. 1853, 100 L.Ed.2d 372].) " 'The rule is well established . . . that one will not be heard to attack a statute on [vagueness] grounds that are not shown to be applicable to himself … By knowingly acquiring the bulletproof vest, he assumed the risk that it would qualify as "body armor" within the meaning of the statute. (See Maynard v.