Case law

Golden v. Anderson

256 Cal. App. 2d 714 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 6, 1967

Clearly, an issue of fact was raised as to whether their acts were in furtherance of a conspiracy to deny plaintiff his commission. The trial court, however, did not reach this point. … The court found that, since the evidence showed these three defendants were acting in their representative capacities as managing agents of the defendant corporations, they were immune from liability.

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.

Walter H. Leimert Co. v. California Coastal Commission

149 Cal. App. 3d 222 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 1, 1983

Appellants were clearly aggrieved persons because their counsel appeared and represented them. … Appellants’ damage claims are clearly barred by this immunity.

People v. Hill

191 Cal. App. 4th 1104 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 13, 2011

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding Chaplin qualified to give the challenged expert testimony. Appellant concedes Chaplin was qualified to testify about Bay view gang “culture.” … Clearly, it was not admitted for its truth.

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 ].)

Hart v. County of Los Angeles

260 Cal. App. 2d 512 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 27, 1968

Instead the court will appoint a successor trustee if it is established that the appointed trustee is not performing his duties in conformity with his obligation. … The trust property will not be allowed to revert to the grantor or his heirs unless the grant or devise clearly manifests such an intent. (In re Los Angeles County Pioneer Soc., 40 Cal.2d 852, 865-866 [ 257 P.2d 1 ].)

Villa Garfield, Inc. v. The City of Monterey Park CA2/2

California Court of Appeal · Oct 21, 2014

of any applicable statutory immunity. … The answer depends on whether the Developer can plead around the immunity in Government Code section 818.8.

Estate of Sax

214 Cal. App. 3d 1300 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 18, 1989

Since the enactment of these two code sections, no published case has addressed the issue of whether a putative spouse qualifies as an omitted spouse. … The trial court ruled that these words neither defined “omitted spouse” nor qualified them but rather established the time frame with reference to the will.

Maria Elena's Restaurant v. Boyes CA2/6

California Court of Appeal · Apr 20, 2023

Fraudulent statements allegedly made by Paramo and Boyes during settlement discussions clearly qualify as privileged: 1) They were made in a judicial proceeding. … Similarly, the request for dismissal clearly qualifies as privileged: 1) It was made in a judicial proceeding. 2) It was made by Boyes, a participant authorized by law. 3) It was made to achieve an object of the litigation

American Chemistry Council v. Office of Environmental Health etc.

California Court of Appeal · Nov 10, 2020

of the state’s qualified experts it has been clearly shown through scientifically valid testing according to generally accepted principles to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity, or if a body considered to be authoritative … (a));9 (2) the qualified experts mechanism – chemicals for which “in the opinion of the state’s qualified experts it has been clearly shown through scientifically valid testing according to generally accepted principles to

In Re Marriage of Stier

178 Cal. App. 3d 42 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 27, 1986

Under the well-settled principles of res judicata, a final judgment by a court of competent jurisdiction is presumptively valid and immune from collateral attack. (Code Civ. … Thereafter, the husband qualified for disability retirement under title 38 of the United States Code.

Fabian L. v. Superior Court

214 Cal. App. 4th 1018 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 22, 2013

Mother failed to provide A.L. with adequate medical care, including immunizations. Mother had an unresolved history of substance abuse and domestic violence with Father. … He clearly exhibited a strong commitment to his daughter regardless of the barriers he faced as an incarcerated parent.

Overton v. White

18 Cal. App. 2d 567 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 19, 1937

Hall died on July 28, 1933; that her will was duly admitted to probate and plaintiff appointed executrix; that plaintiff qualified as such and is the duly appointed, qualified and acting executrix of the estate of the deceased … “But it is clearly established by the authorities that the appellate court will not reverse an order denying leave to amend except for abuse of discretion. As said in San Joaquin Valley Bank v.

Calrow v. Appliance Industries, Inc.

49 Cal. App. 3d 556 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 30, 1975

I think it will show clearly that the driver of the vehicle who caused this collision, who was driving a ’59 station wagon, Mr. … The fact is clearly shown in plaintiffs’ opening statement that defendant Beaudoin was not working at his job at the time the drinking took place.

Garcetti v. Superior Court

80 Cal. Rptr. 2d 724 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 23, 1998

It was determined that Lyles met the initial criteria based on his qualifying offenses, and on October 22, 1996, a memorandum was sent by the Board of Prison Terms and the Department of Corrections to the Department of Mental … Remedy for “unlawful” custody is not immunity from civil commitment under the SVP Act.

People v. Yorba

209 Cal. App. 3d 1017 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 19, 1989

His sister’s boyfriend testified under a grant of immunity. … First, the reliability of the method must be established; next, the witness providing the testimony must qualify as an expert on the subject; and finally, “the proponent of the evidence must demonstrate that correct scientific

Conservatorship of McKeown

25 Cal. App. 4th 502 · California Court of Appeal · May 31, 1994

This hearing was a reestablishment proceeding as opposed to an establishment proceeding. … NOTES [1] CALJIC No. 2.80 states in pertinent part: "A duly qualified expert may give an opinion on questions in controversy at a trial.

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.

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

Christiansen v. Hollings

44 Cal. App. 2d 332 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 21, 1941

App. (2d) 360 [ 55 Pac. (2d) 588 ], as establishing error in the giving of the instruction. … Of course, the statute did not establish, as a matter of law, that the decedent was not guilty of contributory negligence.