Case law

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

Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board

136 Cal. App. 3d 315 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 5, 1982

Clearly, in this instance, the California Constitution 1 confers the exclusive power to regulate the issuance of licenses to the Department. … Therefore, no facts other than those establishing a statistical deviation from section 61.3 are necessary.

Dessert Seed Co. v. Brown

96 Cal. App. 3d 69 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 16, 1979

Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. (1978) 21 Cal.3d 551, 556-557 [ 147 Cal.Rptr. 165 , 580 P.2d 665 ]: “Although recognizing a general immunity from judicial review of determinations other than final orders of the board, federal … We cannot say the dismissal amounts to the gross abuse or clearly unreasonable or arbitrary action which would justify our granting judicial review at this stage.

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 ].)

Scott v. Phoenix Schools, Inc.

175 Cal. App. 4th 702 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 30, 2009

Wendy Terry had been assigned to that class, but she was not a qualified teacher. … Code Regs., tit. 22, § 101316.5, Register 85, No. 27 (July 6, 1985) p. 3111.) 2 The ratios are clearly set forth, and the record indicates that the administrators of Phoenix were well aware of the ratios.

People v. Garcia

256 Cal. App. 2d 570 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 30, 1967

Doctors Gore and Peters were both psychiatrists and qualified narcotic experts. … Here, the repeated use of heroin by appellant over the approximately two-month period between his release from jail and his arrest is clearly established, and, in our opinion, the two medical examiners were justified in inferring

People v. K.B.

238 Cal. App. 4th 989 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 20, 2015

The juvenile court overruled the defense objection that the officer had not qualified as an expert in firearms. … Hinton (2006) 37 Cal.4th 839, 896–897 [rejecting a claim of improper admission of testimony without qualifying the witness as an expert because the evidence established that the witness, a police detective, was “familiar

Roos v. Loeser

41 Cal. App. 782 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 27, 1919

As Blackstone puts it, dogs were the subject of property to a very limited and qualified degree; they had no intrinsic value, and were regarded as being kept only through the whim or caprice of their owner. … But that day has passed, and dogs now have a well-established status before the law. Considerable sums of money are invested in dogs, and they are the subject of extensive trade.

Miller v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County

63 Cal. App. 1 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 7, 1923

Prom these premises they argue that the jurisdiction of the superior court is conclusively established; and that since the writ of review is confined to matters of jurisdiction, we are now precluded from examining or considering … If at the time when the receiver qualified and attempted to take possession of the property in question this boiler had passed to the actual possession of the Pugh-Miller Drilling Company, the plaintiff in replevin, clearly

People v. Katz

47 Cal. App. 3d 294 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 17, 1975

A related question is what standard to apply to determine whether he had knowledge. 1 Jerome Furman, who was given immunity from prosecution, testified that he had seen appellant regarding the purchase of antique pocket watches … Such statement clearly embraced the reasonable doubt standard as to any affirmative defense provided for by the statute. The jury was correctly instructed. 2.

Boling v. Public Employment Relations Board

10 Cal. App. 5th 853 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 11, 2017

PERB asserts that we must follow its determinations of law unless clearly erroneous. … City of Livermore (1976) 18 Cal.3d 582, 594), the courts have repeatedly noted "it is well established . . .

Block v. Orange County Employees' Retirement System

75 Cal. Rptr. 3d 137 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 10, 2008

Code § 31838.5 was clearly intended by the California Legislature and the Governor who signed the legislation to ‘eliminate the possibility that an employee receiving benefits under the County Employees’ Retirement System … Code § 31838.5 was clearly intended to address a public policy issue where a member ‘receives combined pension benefits in excess of his final compensation.’ . . . [][] The maximum amount of final compensation allowed to

Montgomery Ward & Co. v. State Board of Equalization

272 Cal. App. 2d 728 · California Court of Appeal · May 12, 1969

The general rule, applicable here, is that a taxpayer claiming immunity from a tax has the burden of establishing his exemption. [Pn. omitted.] ” ( 340 U.S. at p. 537 [95 L.Ed. at pp. 520-521].) … It merely establishes that the local activities subjected the corporation to a tax measured by its local sales.

People v. Moncada

210 Cal. App. 4th 1124 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 16, 2012

Superior Court (2011) 198 CaI.App.4th 1076, 1079 [ 132 Cal.Rptr.3d 18 ] [stating that former § 194 “plainly established] a time-based ‘immunity’ [citation] to particular charges, and [wa]s therefore indistinguishable in operation … The “last antecedent” rule of statutory construction directs that “ 1 “qualifying words, phrases and clauses are to be applied to the words or phrases immediately preceding and are not to be construed as extending to or including

People v. Rigo

81 Cal. Rptr. 2d 624 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 21, 1999

marijuana for any idiosyncratic problem, whether medically valid or not, with an ensuing *415 attempt to seek medical approval after an arrest intervened. 6 Medical marijuana should be prescribed for specific relief for clearly … The difference in meaning between the two terms makes no difference in our resolution of the issue in appellant’s case. 4 Appellant argues that section 11362.5 is not a defense, but an immunity, and therefore, a proper basis

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

People v. Espino

247 Cal. App. 4th 746 · California Court of Appeal · May 24, 2016

Yazzie (10th Cir. 2013) 741 F.3d 1126, 1131[officer enjoyed qualified immunity because existing law did not clearly establish the duty to release arrestee].) … But “[t]he rule is clearly established that consent induced by an illegal search or arrest is not voluntary, and that if the accused consents immediately following an illegal entry or search, his assent is not voluntary because

V.S. v. M.L.

222 Cal. App. 4th 730 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 27, 2013

[Victor] has never met Donald and has no relationship with him; clearly he would like to do so but [Mary] has thwarted [Victor’s] attempts.” Donald was bom April 20, 2012. … ., supra, 195 Cal.App.4th at p. 213), both Roger and Victor will have qualified to be treated as Donald’s presumed father.

Martin v. Superior Court

230 Cal. App. 3d 1192 · California Court of Appeal · May 30, 1991

The goals of the people in enacting Proposition 115 are clearly set forth in subdivision (c) of section 1 of the initiative. … Griggs’s testimony establishes he had at least seven years’ experience in the area of investigating fires to determine if arson was involved.

County of Los Angeles v. Bean

176 Cal. App. 2d 521 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 22, 1959

The record clearly indicates that there was ample evidence to establish that the well was not located on the property taken and further, that because of the zoning ordinance the property could not legally be used as an oil … well established.