Case law

People v. Hill

116 Cal. App. 2d 212 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 18, 1953

Appellant’s contention that the legal presumptions establish his innocence is a vain effort to immunize himself by an odor of legality. … Moreover, this court is powerless to interfere with the court’s order denying the motion for a new trial unless the record clearly shows that as a matter of law the evidence excludes the greater offense. (People v.

Cline v. Lund

31 Cal. App. 3d 755 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 20, 1973

Also, Evidence Code section 646 clearly allows the jury to find proximate cause in circumstances similar to those shown by the evidence in the case before us. For example, the jury could have believed that if Dr. … On the present record the case clearly falls within the negligence category. At the time of the motion to, amend, any possible battery cause was barred by limitations. (Code Civ. Proc., § 340.5.)

MacK v. Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control

178 Cal. App. 2d 149 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 18, 1960

to the licensing authority for their conduct in the exercise of his license, else we would have the absurd result that liquor could be sold by employees at forbidden hours in licensed premises and the licensees would be immune … Since, as we have already pointed out, the evidence clearly establishes that the licensees had, at the very minimum, constructive or imputed knowledge of the illegal gambling and bookmaking activities of their bartender on

Rodie v. Board of Administration

115 Cal. App. 3d 559 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 29, 1981

Our conclusion complies with the established policy requiring a liberal interpretation of pension statutes in favor of the applicant. (See Cavitt v. … The file was actually sent to the court two days after the hearing and discussion between Rodie’s attorney and the court at a subsequent hearing clearly indicates a mutual understanding that the file was in evidence. 9 Code

People v. Chavez

124 Cal. App. 3d 215 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 5, 1981

The foregoing summary clearly demonstrates that defendant did not have an interpreter “throughout the proceedings.” … I understand that his Spanish-speaking counsel was unable to clearly communicate with the defendant!

People v. Dean

174 Cal. App. 4th 186 · California Court of Appeal · May 22, 2009

Here, plaintiff properly established by documentary *196 evidence and otherwise that defendant had sustained two qualifying convictions. … For the purpose of clearly identifying the parties, Jeffrey Dean will be referred to as defendant and the People will be referred to as plaintiff. 2 The initial petition for commitment was filed in December 2001.

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. ...”

Neilson v. City of California City

35 Cal. Rptr. 3d 453 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 3, 2005

The use of the phrase “[a]ny special tax” and the language in article XIII D, section 3, subdivision (a) that introduces the enumerated exceptions clearly establish that a special tax receiving a two-thirds vote may be imposed … Who are the “qualified electors”?

Tokaji v. State Board of Equalization

20 Cal. App. 2d 612 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 30, 1937

The legislature acted clearly within its power and the limitation complained of cannot be said to be an invasion of any constitutional rights. As was declared by the United States Supreme Court in Crowley v. … So definitely is this established by a long line of decisions that it is settled beyond all reasonable controversy.

Smith v. Adventist Health System/West

190 Cal. App. 4th 40 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 16, 2010

Reiber’s motion stated that he joined in the arguments of CMStaff, Adventist Health, and Rawson and also asserted that the claims against him were barred by the immunity provided by Civil Code sections 43.7, subdivision ( … Fifth, such a broad application of the privilege would render the qualified privileges relating to peer review proceedings superfluous. (See Civ. Code, §§ 43.7, 43.8.)

In Re Marriage of Becker

161 Cal. App. 3d 65 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 23, 1984

They are correct that Chirmside is not controlling, but they mistakenly fail to recognize that Chirmside clearly points to the path to be followed: were the retirement contributions refunded, former wife would be entitled … Where only a portion of the acquisition price has been furnished, a resulting trust may be established in a fractional interest in the property on a pro tanto basis. ( Keene v.

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

Maillet v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board

23 Cal. App. 3d 107 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 26, 1972

Reid, supra, 69 Cal.2d at pp. 225-226) (original italics), and the court has clearly indicated that the collateral source rule of damages is inapplicable when workmen’s compensation payments are received from an employer … In the absence of express terms to the contrary, these provisions must be deemed to be qualified by Civil Code section 3517 which provides that “No one can take advantage of his own wrong.” ’ [Citation.]”

Property Research Financial Corp. v. Superior Court

23 Cal. App. 3d 413 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 9, 1972

We believe, however, that the context clearly indicates that “the defendant” refers to a defendant who qualifies under one of the subdivisions following, and that the qualifying phrase in subdivision 2 “not residing in this … state” must be taken to likewise qualify “the defendant” in the preamble. 5 It is noteworthy that the 1958 amendment governing federal diversity jurisdiction for corporations (28 U.S.C. 1332(c)), established dual, or even

People v. Vassar

207 Cal. App. 2d 318 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 30, 1962

Another qualified expert witness, Joseph H. … If the testimony of Adams may be considered as attempting to establish another transaction or the commission of another offense, it appears to us that such a transaction was so clearly connected with the present offense charged

Borel v. City of Murrieta CA4/3

California Court of Appeal · Nov 30, 2023

DISCUSSION Section 1799.107 became effective in 1984, and through it, the Legislature sought to provide a qualified immunity to public entities and emergency rescue personnel providing emergency services. … In this case, the City attempted 5 to meet its burden by doing the latter; it sought to establish it is exempt from liability due to statutory immunity.

Schindler v. Palo Verde Irrigation District

1 Cal. App. 3d 831 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 18, 1969

Code, §§ 20500 et seq.) to support his demand for the establishment of divisions within the Palo Verde Irrigation District. … The amended complaint contains no factual allegations showing that the board of trustees has abused its discretion in failing to establish precincts.

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.

Curreri v. City & County of San Francisco

262 Cal. App. 2d 603 · California Court of Appeal · May 29, 1968

There the injured person was clearly negligent and no dangerous condition was established. Although Branzel v. … Muskopf discarded prior conceptions of governmental immunity from tort liability. The Public Liability Act now defines the type of property conditions for which a public entity may be held liable.

Moorpark School District of Ventura County v. Reynolds

13 Cal. App. 170 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 7, 1910

Upon the filing of the petition by the Somis school district the superintendent of schools called an election in each of the school districts, notifying the qualified electors of an election to be held upon the question of … An examination of the petitions filed with the superintendent of schools clearly shows *174 that the petitioners therefor did not unite in a request for the formation of a specific territory into a high school district.