Case law

Shelton v. City of Westminster

138 Cal. App. 3d 610 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 24, 1982

Thus, in a statutory sense, immunity is the rule and liability is the exception. … On the other hand, common law tort principles which guide our interpretational path suggest that "... when there is negligence, the rule is liability, immunity is the exception." ( Muskopf v.

Shortridge v. Municipal Court

151 Cal. App. 3d 611 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 1, 1984

Turning to the merits, we find appellant’s contention clearly unacceptable. Penal Code section 26 expressly provides that “All persons are capable of committing crimes . . . .” … That law merely established a less harsh system for youthful offenders who commit crimes.

Ervin v. City of Los Angeles

117 Cal. App. 2d 303 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 14, 1953

Appellant city qualified some of its employees as experts in .the field of timber and what could be determined from the observation of redwood. … of establishing the visibility of the fracture should the jury believe that it had existed for any considerable length of time.

Baker v. WCAB

California Court of Appeal · Jul 28, 2017

But in doing so we must give great weight to the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board’s interpretation of the applicable statutes, unless that interpretation is clearly erroneous. (Ibid.) B. … We are guided by well- established rules of statutory construction. Our primary goal in construing a statute is to ascertain and effectuate the Legislature’s intent. (People v.

People v. Mitchell

80 Cal. App. 252 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 13, 1926

Expert testimony, given by the insurance adjuster, who qualified as to experience and ability to judge as to values of such property, was sufficient. … The existence, situation, and character of such objects may be established by witnesses. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 1954.)

Honeywell Information Systems, Inc. v. County of Sonoma

44 Cal. App. 3d 23 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 23, 1974

the institutions upon which the tax exemption is conferred may contribute to the public welfare and serve the interests of the state; for they too, like other owners of property, have the burden of *28 showing that they clearly … A. (1950) 35 Cal.2d 760 , 774-775 [ 221 P.2d 47 ]: “But conceding the praiseworthy motives underlying the establishment of these respective facilities as outlined by plaintiff, it must be remembered that the test for the

Qualified Patients Assn. v. City of Anaheim CA4/3

California Court of Appeal · Jan 15, 2014

Filed 1/15/14 Qualified Patients Assn. v. … (Qualified Patients Assn. v. City of Anaheim (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 734, 756- 765.)

Bilofsky v. Deukmejian

124 Cal. App. 3d 825 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 21, 1981

In their complaint they allege that Weisberg is a proponent 2 and Bilofsky a circulator of a petition to qualify for the November 1980, general election an initiative measure, requiring establishment of “Smoking and Non-Smoking … or attempted to qualify for placement on the ballot.

In re Hicks

California Court of Appeal · Nov 17, 2023

The Proposition 57 ballot materials The ballot materials for the November 8, 2016 election clearly conveyed to the voters that Proposition 57 would establish “Parole Consideration for Nonviolent Offenders” (Voter Information … However, existing regulations do not clearly state that these individuals are excluded from NVPP eligibility.

Larwin-Southern California, Inc. v. JGB Investment Co.

101 Cal. App. 3d 626 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 12, 1979

This agreement was clearly a bilateral one, the consideration for which was the mutual promises of the parties.... … That duty constitutes legally sufficient consideration to establish mutuality of obligation.

San Francisco Unified School District Ex Rel. Contreras v. First Student, Inc.

224 Cal. App. 4th 627 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 11, 2014

If a false statement was clearly material when it was made, the fact that the contracting entity did not treat the falsity as material upon discovering it would not preclude a claim under the CFCA. … (S.D.N.Y. 1999) 53 F.Supp.2d 436, 447 [defendant failed to investigate whether mailings qualified for nonprofit status].)

Van Wagener v. MacFarland

58 Cal. App. 115 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 16, 1922

On the general subject that the organization of municipal corporations is immune from attack by an individual or in a collateral way, reference may be made to Coe v. City of Los Angeles, 42 Cal. … It is clearly established that the parties affected by the acts of such an officer cannot question their validity or object to the proceedings. As was sand in Mayor and City Council of Nashville v.

Kinney v. County of Contra Costa

8 Cal. App. 3d 761 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 15, 1970

And under section 847 those defendants enjoyed immunity from civil liability for conduct which was required by that section and section 142. … The objection as to lack of foundation was clearly invalid; the sheriff’s captain by training and experience was well qualified to testify concerning the usual time taken in bringing an arrested person before a magistrate

People v. Cervantes

12 Cal. Rptr. 3d 774 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 29, 2004

All three appellants contend the trial court erroneously failed to modify CALJIC No. 2.20 to include immunized testimony. … Washington (2004) 541 U.S. 36 [ 158 L.Ed.2d 177 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 ] (Crawford), the United States Supreme Court established new rules for determining whether a criminal defendant’s constitutional right to confront witnesses

People v. Stanislawski

180 Cal. App. 3d 748 · California Court of Appeal · May 5, 1986

It is fundamental that in order to be immune from air surveillances or overflights, the person controlling the land must exhibit not merely a subjective desire, but rather an objective, reasonable expectation of privacy with … It follows that here appellant has fallen short of establishing the requisite expectation in order to challenge the legality of the campsite search.

People v. Mace CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · Mar 27, 2014

Under Smith, in order to establish that judicial use immunity is warranted in a particular case, a defendant must demonstrate to the trial court that (1) the proffered testimony is clearly exculpatory; (2) the testimony … Thus, under the Smith test, immunity would be denied if the proffered testimony is ambiguous, not clearly exculpatory, cumulative or relates solely to the credibility of the government's witnesses. (Ibid.)

Good Shepherd Lutheran Home v. State Board of Equalization

139 Cal. App. 3d 876 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 14, 1983

Appellant had the burden of showing to the trial court that it clearly came within the terms of a statutory exemption from taxation. (See Nat. Charity League, Inc. v. County of L. … Thus, based on our examination of the record on appeal, appellant has failed to meet its burden of establishing that it was entitled to the welfare exemption from sales taxes pursuant to section 6375.

People v. Fritz

62 Cal. Rptr. 3d 885 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 26, 2007

The court rejected the first argument, concluding that the priors were not similar enough to the current charges to qualify for admission under section 1101, subdivision (b). … This is so clearly a falsehood evidencing consciousness of guilt, so clearly related to the facts of the case, that there was no reason for the court to use anything but the shorthand reference to the rule which we have quoted

Mitchell v. Bagot

48 Cal. App. 2d 281 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 5, 1941

The rule is ivell settled that once the decree of distribution becomes final it becomes the measure of the rights of the beneficiary and is immune from collateral attack even though in contravention of the terms of the will … Just how that credit is to be allowed is clearly within the discretion of the court. If the court determines that the granting of a lien is reasonably necessary, that power clearly is granted by the section.

Gilbert v. Sykes

53 Cal. Rptr. 3d 752 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 26, 2007

Clearly, the Web site was not limited to attacking Sykes, but contributed to the general debate over the pros and cons of undergoing cosmetic surgery. … establish that there is a probability he will prevail on his claims. (§ 425.16, subd.