Case law

Shropshire v. Pickwick Stages

85 Cal. App. 216 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 23, 1927

, otherwise such affirmative defense is not established. … After qualifying in this manner he answered the question propounded by the court as to the speed of the bus. His answer was, “Must have been going forty miles an hour.”

Yuba Consolidated Goldfields v. Hilton

16 Cal. App. 228 · California Court of Appeal · May 10, 1911

*Page 232 As to the driftwood, it will probably not be disputed that when it lodges upon the land plaintiff has either a qualified or an absolute ownership in it. … While the right to take the wood was not directly put in issue or found by the court, it seems to be clearly implied in the allegations of the answer and the findings of the court.

People v. Beck

25 Cal. App. 4th 1095 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 9, 1994

The firearm involved clearly would qualify as a confiscable nuisance. … The successor owner, if qualified, may obtain possession of the firearms.

Johnston v. Department of Personnel Administration

191 Cal. App. 3d 1218 · California Court of Appeal · May 12, 1987

A court may not insert into a statute qualifying provisions not included or rewrite a statute to conform to an inferred intention that does not appear from its language. (Mills v. … 19700 to 19706, which make it unlawful to discriminate against an employee, and the federal Civil Rights Act ( 42 U.S.C. § 1983 et seq.) which gives a remedy to parties deprived of constitutional rights, privileges, and immunities

People Ex Rel. Department of Public Works v. Nahabedian

171 Cal. App. 2d 302 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 12, 1959

In the case at bar, all efforts of appellant to establish that the *309 taking was not for a public purpose were excluded by the trial court. … In this regard, the record reflects that appellant had qualified to give her opinion as to the value of Parcel 3 in her capacity as owner thereof.

People v. Cantu

216 Cal. App. 2d 839 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 5, 1963

The nature of the evidence necessary to establish the commission of that offense is set forth in People v. Hunter, 158 Cal.App.2d 500 [ 322 P.2d 942 ], at page 505. … The record establishes that the trial court made no determination of that matter and the judgment contains no reference to the prior conviction.

People v. Super. Ct. (Farley)

California Court of Appeal · Mar 6, 2024

Amicus curiae Peace and Justice Law Center urges that this court adopt a “workable standard” to establish when an association or group qualifies as “organized” within the meaning of section 186.22(f). … Superior Court (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 656, 666–667 [at preliminary hearing, prosecution “mostly 27 established” that a group qualified as a “criminal street gang” under § 186.22(f) by presenting

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.

Santa Barbara Optical Co. v. State Board of Equalization

47 Cal. App. 3d 244 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 16, 1975

Carter (1972) 229 Ga. 876 [ 195 S.E.2d 4 ], was decided upon the ground of sovereign immunity pursuant to an express Georgia statute different from that of California. … Throughout, respondent has taken the position that the unnamed plaintiffs did not qualify as “claimants” under the claims sections of the Revenue and Taxation Code.

People v. Amerson

151 Cal. App. 3d 165 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 25, 1984

They were better qualified to determine his eligibility than any other person or persons involved. … Although there were multiple victims to this tragic incident, the record clearly establishes that there was but one objective as to Amerson’s conduct. *171 The Supreme Court in People v.

Phillips v. Phillips

48 Cal. App. 2d 404 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 9, 1941

The intent of the court, clearly indicated, was to hear all the witnesses on that day, and then withhold the ruling for a week, within which time respondent might have an opportunity to pay the installment of allowance which … The qualifying clause, “but other things being equal,’’ still leaves a large measure of discretion with the trial court.

Reece v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board

64 Cal. App. 3d 675 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 7, 1976

It then stated, “We do not consider the department as having established a compelling interest for the application of section 58 as to the factual situation before us; i.e., where an otherwise qualified spouse holds the proposed … Second, to the extent that Sail’er Inn may be interpreted to find a cognizable ‘fundamental interest’ in the right to pursue employment, it is clearly limited in scope to.

Venuto v. State of California Dept. of Transportation CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · Aug 18, 2015

(See, e.g., Cornette, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 72 ["[s]ection 830.6 clearly makes the resolution of the third element of design immunity, the existence of substantial evidence supporting the reasonableness of the adoption … was established as a matter of law.

DeCastro West Chodorow & Burns, Inc. v. Superior Court

47 Cal. App. 4th 410 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 16, 1996

Defendants also argued that plaintiffs were required to establish their lost profits or lost opportunity with reasonable certainty, and they could not do so; instead plaintiffs attempted to establish their claim with “mere … Now, the independent clause appears first, with the qualifying clause beginning with “if’ appearing second.

Stop the Casino 101 Coalition v. Brown

California Court of Appeal · Oct 28, 2014

Clearly neither of the first two methods apply and, the coalition argues, neither does the third. … Moreover, his determination clearly is correct.

Citizens Utilities Co. v. Wheeler

156 Cal. App. 2d 423 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 30, 1957

There was no established market price; there was no prior course of dealings between the parties; and the record discloses no established practice in the industry by which the price could be fixed. … It can be read; it was read before it was signed; and because it is English, its meaning can be very clearly ascertained.”

Ayala v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board

54 Cal. App. 3d 676 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 22, 1976

available to work if called upon; and (2) Ayala’s claim is proscribed by the Wagner-Peyser Act ( 29 U.S.C. §§ 49-49 (k)) a federal statute by which California is bound. *679 The. first argument predicated upon section 1253 is clearly … a system of employment services forepersons legally qualified to work in *681 this country.

Keyhea v. Rushen

178 Cal. App. 3d 526 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 6, 1986

Black’s Law Dict. (5th ed. 1979) p. 1189, col. 2 [describing “right” as “A power, privilege, or immunity guaranteed under a constitution, statutes or decisional laws . . .”]; see generally De Lancie v. … —which is doubtful—such treatment clearly can occur only under court order. (Prob. Code, § 3201.)

People v. C.H.

2 Cal. App. 5th 1139 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 30, 2016

not guilty or acquitted of the qualifying offense. (§ 299 subd. … “The rules we must apply when faced with two irreconcilable statutes are well established.

Ruelas v. Harper CA4/2

California Court of Appeal · Oct 6, 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