Case law

Richelle L. v. Roman Catholic Archbishop

130 Cal. Rptr. 2d 601 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 17, 2003

These constitutional provisions guarantee the free exercise of religion and bar laws respecting an establishment of religion. … The complaint does, however, suffer another deficiency, and it is one that clearly cannot be cured by amendment.

Moore v. Burton

75 Cal. App. 395 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 2, 1925

officers whose negligence was the direct cause of the conditions from which injury to individuals directly resulted would be to extend the rule now applicable to cases of nonfeasance to official misfeasance, and with it the immunities … which considerations of justice as well as policy render proper for the protection of those whose duties in the first instance have been properly performed—a construction limiting a just and long-established rule of liability

People v. Monismith

1 Cal. App. 3d 762 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 14, 1969

Along the way, they stopped several times at bars and drinking establishments and, at each stop, both defendant and Ivy drank intoxicating liquor. … Clearly, the code sections are concerned not with just a driver and not with just a vehicle, but with the driver of a vehicle involved in an accident. (People v.

Rowe v. Southern California Railway Co.

4 Cal. App. 1 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 23, 1906

On this appeal, therefore, which is from a judgment of nonsuit, these facts must be assumed as established. … This proposition is true only in a qualified sense.

People v. Brown

California Court of Appeal · Aug 10, 2017

[Citation.][7] However, impossibility of conviction is not the same as innocence, and if the guilt of two is established, one may be convicted although the other may be protected by immunity or some other … For example, the acts of a coconspirator who has been granted prosecutorial immunity may be considered in establishing the culpability of other coconspirators. [Citations.]

Tulare Medical Center Property etc. Valdivia

California Court of Appeal · May 6, 2026

First, the CC&Rs are clearly a “written instrument relating to real property” within the meaning of subdivision (a) of section 53. … Second, the provision addressing abortion clinics is clearly a “prohibition” for purposes of section 53.

Gervase v. Superior Court

31 Cal. App. 4th 1218 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 26, 1995

enterprise and cannot claim automatic immunity under the authorities which hold that the RICO enterprise cannot also be a RICO defendant. … it is to say that the largest or most comprehensive legal entity identified in the complaint is not ipso facto immune.

Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Industrial Accident Commission

73 Cal. App. 2d 555 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 18, 1946

Com., 130 Cal.App. 284 [ 20 P.2d 53 ], have established such a rule in this state. … Other doctors, equally qualified, honestly believe that strain adversely affects such preexisting condition.

People v. Vincilione

17 Cal. App. 513 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 21, 1911

Renner was the duly elected, qualified and acting justice of the peace in and for Sausalito township in the county of Marin, and that there was then and there pending before said Renner, as justice of the peace, a certain … Heretofore, when confronted by a question involving a conflict of evidence, the established rule of law required us to hold that the verdict of the jury was conclusive ; but even if it be conceded that the jurisdiction of

Samantha C. v. State Department of Developmental Services

185 Cal. App. 4th 1462 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 25, 2010

[Samantha] did not establish she suffers from a qualifying developmental disability. [¶] . . . [¶] . . . … Here, the Lanterman Act and implementing regulations clearly defer to the expertise of the DDS and [regional center] professionals and their determination as to whether an individual is developmentally disabled.

Garrett v. Howmedica Osteonics Corp.

214 Cal. App. 4th 173 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 6, 2013

The goal of trial court gatekeeping is simply to exclude ‘clearly invalid and unreliable’ expert opinion. [Citation.] … “A person is qualified to testify as an expert if he has special knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education sufficient to qualify him as an expert on the subject to which his testimony relates.” (Evid.

People v. Hollywood

California Court of Appeal · Feb 28, 2024

Our ruling will eliminate “clearly meritless” petitions, which serves the legislative purpose to deny relief to a “major participant” in a felony murder case. (See Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 971.) … Specific Contentions Appellant contends the record of conviction may have conclusively established that he had the intent to kill during the commission of a kidnapping, but it did not establish the actus reus requirement

L. Byron Culver & Associates v. Jaoudi Industrial & Trading Corp.

1 Cal. App. 4th 300 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 25, 1991

We conclude the record clearly establishes a dual agency relationship and Culver failed to disclose it. Consequently we affirm the judgment. … However, a review of all the pertinent facts presented at trial clearly supports the court’s finding that Culver was Jaoudi Industrial’s agent, therefore establishing a dual agency.

People v. Eldridge

72 Cal. App. 386 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 23, 1925

This is a true statement, made free and voluntarily, without promise of reward or immunity, and know it will be used against me in court. Witnesses: Biehard 0. Hughes, Detective-Sergeant 689, George J. … The corpus delicti was clearly and positively established by the testimony of the victim of the robbery, and appellant’s connection with and participation in the crime was shown by his own confession and by the one made by

West Coast Poultry Co. v. Glasner

231 Cal. App. 2d 747 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 20, 1965

Hebraic law requires that only an orthodox Rabbi is qualified to determine if poultry is kosher according to Hebraic Orthodox religious requirements. … Hebraic law provides that a *750 lawfully ordained orthodox Rabbi is privileged to enter any kosher business establishment to inspect whether the establishment adheres to kosher standards.

Professional Engineers in California Government v. State Personnel Board

90 Cal. App. 4th 678 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 11, 2001

qualified or as to relative level of qualification. … In a concise argument the Engineers urge: “Appointments to CEA positions through ‘transfer’ are clearly unconstitutional. Article VII, Section 1(b) makes ‘competitive examination’ mandatory.

People v. Hernandez

6 Cal. App. 4th 1355 · California Court of Appeal · May 28, 1992

A felony defendant who argues that his constitutional speedy trial motion was wrongly denied can claim the same immunity from further prosecution that is routinely available to the misdemeanor defendant. … Both principles are well established.

Young v. Superior Court

190 Cal. App. 2d 759 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 3, 1961

“All states have established by statute the testimonial status of husband and wife in actions to which one is a party. … The husband’s testimony, although evasive, equivocal and intended to cover up the true facts, clearly established the corpus delicti without defendant’s statements to the police officer that she shot her husband because of

Johns v. Baender

40 Cal. App. 790 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 26, 1919

Baender, in whom the record title remained until it was conveyed to defendant Niels Gostave, which conveyance was made for the purpose of enabling Gostave to qualify as a 'bondsman for said Charles L. … To this much under the issue the plaintiff was clearly entitled.

21st Century Insurance v. Superior Court

240 Cal. App. 4th 322 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 10, 2015

The appellate court reversed summary judgment in favor of the insurer (which relied on Hamilton), first finding that a defense under one policy did not immunize the failure to defend under a second policy. … Tapia regularly drove the truck which was involved in the accident and this was established long before plaintiff offered to settle the case for $150,000.13 At that point clearly 21st Century had no obligation to defend