Case law

Alshafie v. Lallande

171 Cal. App. 4th 421 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 23, 2009

Even if the defendant establishes the grounds for an undertaking, the trial court may waive the requirement if the plaintiff establishes indigency. … Nihad’s financial condition is clearly relevant because he brought suit not only as Heba’s guardian ad litem but also in his individual capacity. Heba’s financial ability is relevant as well.

People v. McCalla

63 Cal. App. 783 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 28, 1923

The statute clearly forbids the acts denounced by it, and its language is plain and positive. … If the advice of counsel could afford immunity to one accused of the violation of a penal statute it would result in the advice of an attorney being paramount to the law.

Hammond v. Agran

120 Cal. Rptr. 2d 646 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 20, 2002

But it could not be gainsaid that the plaintiffs’ lifestyles were wholly immune to the project, either. … The distinction between diverse legal theories bearing on a particular “right” that is established for purposes of section 1021.5 and unrelated “claims” (which may have nothing to do with any rights established for purposes

People v. SUPERIOR COURT (SHARKEY)

183 Cal. App. 4th 85 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 25, 2010

Further, the regulation's criteria for imposition of a 45-day hold were clearly satisfied. … The People did not establish a mistake of either fact or law."

DeCuir v. County of Los Angeles

75 Cal. Rptr. 2d 102 · California Court of Appeal · May 21, 1998

Defendants contend on appeal that plaintiffs exclusive form of judicial review was a proceeding in mandamus rather than a jury trial, that defendants are immune from damages, and that plaintiff failed to establish causation … The fact that Fuchs did not prevail does not establish that a petition for ordinary mandate will automatically fail.

Born v. Koop

200 Cal. App. 2d 519 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 20, 1962

A qualified acceptance is a new proposal.” In American Aero. Corp. v. … The seller’s clause which stated “Seller will subordinate and give a release clause to a qualified builder” limits the matter to a qualified builder and there is no doubt from the testimony that Mr.

Davis v. CSAA Ins. Exchange

California Court of Appeal · Sep 8, 2025

And the second sentence in section 1861.05(a) establishes that considering whether a rate is excessive falls within that role. … That relief would clearly affect CSAA’s existing rights to those sums and impose new liability based on CSAA’s past conduct. 2. Lara was correctly decided.

Plemon v. Nelson

148 Cal. App. 3d 720 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 4, 1983

Plemon entered into a lease-back arrangement with Flight Ventures, a fixed base operator at Van Nuys Airport, in the business of renting airplanes to qualified pilots. 1 On April 11, 1973, Nelson entered into a rental agreement … “Section 1717 was enacted to establish mutuality of remedy where contractual provision makes recovery of attorney’s fees available for only one party [citations], and to prevent oppressive use of one-sided attorney’s fees

People v. Davenport

13 Cal. App. 632 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 18, 1910

The rule is that “impeaching testimony does not establish, or in any way tend to establish, the truth of the matters contained in the contradictory statements.”. (3 Jones on Evidence, 861.) … Therein the jury were told that “The defendant is presumed to be innocent until his guilt is clearly established by the evidence.

Estate of Alexander

111 Cal. App. 1 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 5, 1931

This instruction should not have misled the jury, for they were clearly instructed that the only issue for them to consider was that of the mental soundness of the testator. … The next instruction merely declares the self-evident rule that inferences naturally drawn from facts which are actually established by proof, are entitled to be considered as a part of the evidence.

People v. Cegers

7 Cal. App. 4th 988 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 25, 1992

Mitler, a qualified expert, testified as to his expert opinion concerning the mental characteristics of the defendant. … Although the testimony was susceptible of probing on cross-examination, and possibly of rebuttal by opposing expert testimony, it was in our opinion clearly admissible.

Olofsson v. Mission Linen Supply

211 Cal. App. 4th 1236 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 13, 2012

The letter lacked any printed letterhead indicating it was generated by a medical establishment. … The trial court found that it was not. *1248 Under the CFRA regulations, the employer has a duty to respond to the leave request within 10 days, but clearly and for good reason the law does not specify that the response must

Hoffman v. Rogers

22 Cal. App. 3d 655 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 3, 1972

a fellow employee who injures another while acting within the scope of his employment is immune to suit in any forum absent a finding of wilful or reckless misconduct. … to be one through whom the employer may be charged under Section 4553; (2) such act of such other employee shall be established to have been the proximate cause of the injury or death; and (3) such act is established to

Golden Eagle Milling Co. v. Old Homestead Bakery

59 Cal. App. 541 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 2, 1922

ground that the contract being one for the sale of goods and chattels at a price of $200 and over was invalid if not in writing signed by the defendant, and that the parol evidence offered by the plaintiff for the purpose of establishing … After stating the New York rule the court said: ‘It should be stated, however, that the courts of the state of New York have more recently shown a disposition to qualify the rule thus stated to some extent, and to make it

Scott v. City of Santa Monica CA2/1

California Court of Appeal · Sep 30, 2015

In these circumstances the application of section 831.4 is established as a matter of law.”].) … We could just as readily, and more plausibly, speculate that the City does not allow hunting on the path in controversy, but doing so clearly would not deprive the path of its recreational trail character. 2

Consumer Watchdog v. Dept. Managed Health Care

California Court of Appeal · Sep 10, 2013

autism service provider,” and be administered by either a qualified autism service provider, or a “qualified autism service professional” or “qualified autism service paraprofessional” supervised by the qualified autism … “The state . . . clearly has a strong and demonstrable interest in protecting its citizens from persons who claim some expertise in the healing arts, but whose qualifications have not been established by the receipt of

Downer v. Zolin

34 Cal. App. 4th 578 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 25, 1995

Zolin (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 655, 661 [ 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 225 ] [rejecting similar argument presumption can be used to establish driver gave blood sample within three hours of “lawful” arrest]; Santos v. … date” sits alone without any apparent connection to the test results, when the report was prepared, or when the analysts scribbled their signatures next to the test results, we cannot say the court’s factual finding was clearly

People Ex Rel. Deukmejian v. CHE, Inc.

150 Cal. App. 3d 123 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 23, 1983

Plaintiffs argue the former is inapplicable to the present circumstances and, not only does CHE not qualify for a statutory exemption, there is a triable issue of fact regarding whether such an exemption was ever granted. … For, “first story” is defined in section 19955.3, subdivision (b) as “the lowest story in a building which qualifies as a story and which provides the basic services or functions for which the building is used. ...”

People v. Skelton

109 Cal. App. 3d 691 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 26, 1980

The statute clearly requires the privilege be claimed if immunity is to be obtained. … “A conspiracy may be established by...circumstantial evidence.

Tomlinson v. Qualcomm, Inc.

118 Cal. Rptr. 2d 822 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 17, 2002

That subdivision requires an employer to grant family leave to qualified employees and, when granting that leave, to provide a “guarantee of employment in the same or comparable position upon the termination of the leave. … Even assuming the statements cited by Tomlinson contradicted the express agreement by guaranteeing her continued employment (but see post), under well-established case law, “ ‘[tjhere cannot be a valid express contract and