Case law

Bruni v. The Edward Thomas Hospitality Corporation

California Court of Appeal · May 14, 2021

He is clearly not among the employees that the [o]rdinance seeks to protect.” … Clearly, that is not what the ordinance was intended to accomplish.

People v. Tillman

86 Cal. Rptr. 2d 715 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 21, 1999

The intent behind the enactment of the Three Strikes law was clearly stated by the electorate. … Many other offenses listed under section 290 (e.g., §§266, 266c, 266h, 266i, 266j, 267, 285, 288.2, 311.2, 311.3, 311.4, 311.10, 311.11, 314, 647.6) would not qualify as “strikes” or would so qualify only if the defendant

Estate of Shirley

107 Cal. App. 267 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 17, 1930

Pinckney, 55 Md. 365 .) ” We now advert to an established rule of construction before taking up the specific words made use of by the testator in the codicil. … This rule of construction controls the rule that an interest given in one clause of a will may be qualified or limited by a subsequent clause.”

People v. Kainzrants

45 Cal. App. 4th 1068 · California Court of Appeal · May 22, 1996

These instructions properly defined all relevant elements of the provocative act doctrine as established by law, which is clearly recorded in the transcripts. 2 *1076 II. … Nor are we persuaded by In re Joe R., supra, 27 Cal.3d 496 , because, once again, the facts are clearly distinguishable.

Martino v. Concord Community Hospital District

233 Cal. App. 2d 51 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 17, 1965

Subsection (a) of section 3 provides for the selection by the board of a qualified attorney to act as a hearing officer. … It clearly cannot be said that the giving of an examination constitutes an unreasonable method of determining a physician’s competence.

Neu v. Lessner

208 Cal. App. 3d 981 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 16, 1989

Spear (1911) 63 Wash. 291 [ 115 P. 164, 165 ] [upholding a charitable trust established by a conveyance of land to trustees for the benefit of an unincorporated association, the purpose of which was to acquire land and establish … II It is a cardinal rule that in construing a will the testator’s intent when clearly expressed within the document must be given effect.

Conlan v. Shewry

32 Cal. Rptr. 3d 667 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 15, 2005

By these amendments, the Legislature clearly intended to embrace the decision in Conlan I. … The reimbursement of covered expenses is not a form of monetary damages barred by sovereign immunity.

Apodaca v. Trinity Lumber Co.

226 Cal. App. 2d 1 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 24, 1964

The burden of establishing contributory negligence is upon defendant. … In this ease, such evidence is clearly present. The judgment notwithstanding the verdict is reversed. The order granting a new trial is affirmed. Herndon, Acting P. J., and Kincaid, J. pro tem., * concurred. 1 Mr.

Scott v. Barnes

118 Cal. App. 2d 271 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 1, 1953

When facts are established which clearly make applicable the quoted provision of the section that custody should be awarded to the mother, it is not within the discretion of the court to ignore it. … The qualifying clause, ‘But other things being equal,’ still leaves a large measure of discretion with the trial court.

Biescar v. Czechoslovak-Patronat

145 Cal. App. 2d 133 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 17, 1956

This principle, however, does not apply where the qualifying words appear in the granting clause of the deed. … But this principle is not applicable where the qualifying words are in the granting part of the deed, and so clearly connected with the word “grant” as naturally to *146 suggest that the intention was merely to convey the

Jutzi v. County of Los Angeles

196 Cal. App. 3d 637 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 24, 1987

In holding that the physician could rely on medical literature to determine the standard of care in existence at a prior time, the high court established a flexible test which takes into account the particular circumstances … Morgan was qualified to testify as an expert witness must be upheld absent an abuse of discretion, which will be found only where the evidence shows that a witness clearly lacks qualification as an expert. (People v.

Bostean v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist.

63 Cal. App. 4th 95 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 15, 1998

, or pursuing disability retirement, if he qualified. … Both issues were clearly raised by Bostean below and both are addressed by the trial court’s judgment.

County of L.A. v. Super. Ct.

California Court of Appeal · Jan 17, 2014

from dementia, which is not a qualifying diagnosis” under the LPS Act. … “Clearly,” the petition contends, the passage of Probate Code section 2356.5 was intended by the Legislature “to ensure that dementia patients would not be made conservatees under the LPS Act, but only under the Probate Code

People Ex Rel. Chapman v. City of Garden Grove

165 Cal. App. 2d 794 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 9, 1958

concerned only with the question of whether or not there are triable issues of fact, and does not in the process of passing on a summary judgment attempt *802 to determine the truth or falsity of any issues which have been established … Kremples, supra, the Supreme Court quite clearly answered this question when it said: “Defendant contends . . . that if the allegations of fact in the affidavits in support of the motion for summary judgment are controverted

Louisiana-Pacific Corp. v. Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District

137 Cal. App. 3d 152 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 2, 1982

The statute is clearly discretionary; while it invests the district with power to regulate rates, it does not require that the district do so in every case. … When the permissive nature of section 71614 is coupled with the qualifying “so far as practicable” phraseology of section 71616, it is evident that they are not in conflict with section 71592.

People v. SUPERIOR COURT OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY (GREMMINGER)

58 Cal. App. 4th 397 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 10, 1997

It is well established that civil discovery procedures have no relevance to criminal prosecutions. (Pitchess v. Superior Court, supra, 11 Cal.3d at p. 536 .) … The immunized statement of defendant police officer clearly concerned that officer’s conduct in his capacity as a police officer, and therefore Penal Code section 832.7 required that the statement be made available to the

MacHado v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co.

233 Cal. App. 3d 347 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 13, 1991

[is] generally held to be directory only, and not to qualify or limit a grant which is in absolute form. … But this principle is not applicable where the qualifying words are in the granting part of the deed, and so clearly connected with the word “grant” as naturally to suggest that the intention was merely to convey the right

City of Marina v. BD. OF TRUSTEES OF CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY

135 Cal. Rptr. 2d 815 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 1, 2003

It implies that all funding mechanisms set up or permitted by statute abrogate the immunity of the University from assessments. … In San Marcos , the concurring opinion of Grodin, J., joined by Bird, C.J., noted that the rule seemed artificial but the subject of "well-established" precedent, and invited "the Legislature, if it sees fit, to establish

Vernon v. Drexel Burnham & Co.

52 Cal. App. 3d 706 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 23, 1975

He is in effect asking for retrospective unilateral contractual immunity which is contrary to the law of California. To this same contention the court in Ware v. … We hold that, in the instant case, the policy of law favoring arbitration prevails over the policy of law pertaining to class actions for the following reasons: First, clearly arbitration is a recognized and favored means

Boeken v. Philip Morris Inc.

26 Cal. Rptr. 3d 638 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 1, 2005

It discloses the claim by Philip Morris of immunity for all pre-1998 conduct, not just conduct between 1988 and 1998. … An objection to “this whole area,” even if clearly based upon Cipollone, supra, 505 U.S. at pages 524, 527-528, does not preserve the issue for appeal. (Cf. People v.