Case law

Eggers Industries v. Flintco, Inc.

201 Cal. App. 4th 536 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 5, 2011

“[Pjrinciples of sovereign immunity do not permit liens for persons furnishing labor or supplies on public property . . . .” [Citation.] … The underlying facts are taken from the undisputed facts established by Eggers in support of its summary judgment motion.

Sheet Metal Workers' International Ass'n, Local 104 v. Duncan

229 Cal. App. 4th 192 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 27, 2014

To qualify for the material supplier exemption, the employer must sell supplies to the general public and its fabrication or manufacturing facility must not be established for the particular public works contract or be located … To qualify for this material supplier exemption, the material suppliers had to be selling supplies to the general public, the plant could not be established specially for the particular public works contract, and the plant

Ettlin v. Veasey CA4/2

California Court of Appeal · Oct 30, 2014

It is hard to imagine a claim that more clearly implicates judicial acts. … It explained that the state judge “clearly was performing a judicial function when he denied the [plaintiff]’s request for attorney’s fees. [Citation.]” (Id. at p. 1077.)

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

Tri-Chem, Inc. v. Los Angeles County Flood Control District

60 Cal. App. 3d 306 · California Court of Appeal · May 10, 1976

“[I]n the instant case there has been no direct causal connection established between the flooding of plaintiffs’ property and the paving and grading of the streets.” (Id., at p. 660.) … It is clearly moot. *316 Disposition The judgments are reversed. Defendants to recover costs on both appeals. Ashby, J., and Hastings, J., concurred. A petition for a rehearing was denied June 10, 1976.

Alch v. Superior Court

165 Cal. App. 4th 1412 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 14, 2008

The writers claim the best approximation of the pool of qualified, available and interested writers is based on Writers Guild membership, refined to eliminate categories of writers likely not to be qualified, interested or … The criteria for invasion of a privacy interest were established.

Rickley v. Goodfriend

212 Cal. App. 4th 1136 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 16, 2013

It is well established that an attorney has an independent legal duty to refrain from defrauding nonclients. … Thus, ‘communications with “some relation” to judicial proceedings’ are ‘absolutely immune from tort liability’ by the litigation privilege ....

Hennigan v. White

199 Cal. App. 4th 395 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 20, 2011

individual’s immune system to the pigment in question.” … A third physician crossed out the just quoted lines in his affidavit when he signed it. *401 In her own additional declaration, in an attempt to qualify her transaction with White for strict products liability as one for

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.

Gaillard v. Natomas Co.

208 Cal. App. 3d 1250 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 23, 1989

Under section 310, subdivision (a)(1), respondents argue, the employment agreements are immune from attack. … The satisfaction of section 310’s requirements, however, does not render such contract immune from attack on other grounds, such as corporate waste, and does not render the directors immune from liability for breach of fiduciary

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.

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.

People v. Holman

214 Cal. App. 4th 1438 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 29, 2013

Clearly, as in other cases discussed ante, defendant did not qualify for mandatory relief under the first scenario. She had not fulfilled all the terms of her probation during the entire probationary period. … A probationer who completes the probationary period without being able to establish a claim that the interests of justice merit a dismissal under Penal Code section 1203.4 will not qualify for relief under the third scenario

Russell v. Superior Court of Placer Cty.

252 Cal. App. 2d 1 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 22, 1967

Well-established rules aid us in evaluating the facts stated. … We are not always immune from temptation to categorize to reach a desired result. Applied to those very terms, Mr.

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.

Rio Vista Gas Assn. v. State of California

188 Cal. App. 2d 555 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 26, 1961

This motion was denied by Judge Vernon Stoll, who all parties agree is qualified. … Secondly, even if not waived, Judge Stoll, who was admittedly qualified, could have ordered a new undertaking of the same amount as was previously imposed.

People v. Cove

228 Cal. App. 2d 466 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 15, 1964

Andrews, 153 Cal.App. *471 2d 333 [ 314 P.2d 175 ]) may have been qualified by a recent pronouncement equating police view of the dwelling’s interior with physical intrusion (People v. … There is no claim that illegality of the arrest immunized defendant from criminal liability (see People v. Valenti, 49 Cal.2d 199, 203 [ 316 P.2d 633 ]).

People v. Fusting

1 Cal. App. 5th 404 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 11, 2016

Any other entry into a commercial establishment with intent to commit larceny is burglary. … The court denied the petition because entry into a building with the intent to commit theft by false pretenses does not qualify as shoplifting.

Avila v. Continental Airlines, Inc.

165 Cal. App. 4th 1237 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 11, 2008

To establish a prima facie case for disparate treatment discrimination, plaintiff must show (1) he suffers from a disability, (2) he is otherwise qualified to do his job, (3) he suffered an adverse employment action, and … If the trier of fact concludes that plaintiff requested CFRA-qualifying leave, then Continental's admission that those absences were the cause of plaintiff's discharge is sufficient to establish a causal connection between

Fair v. Hernandez

116 Cal. App. 3d 868 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 12, 1981

The Legislature has the power to establish reasonable regulations governing write-in procedures. ( Binns v. … The intent of the voter must first be ascertained from the ballot and where that intention is clearly expressed and the name is that of a qualified write-in candidate, inaccuracies or use of an incomplete name are of no consequence