Case law

Billings v. Edwards

120 Cal. App. 3d 238 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 10, 1981

Plaintiff could not have been misled and would have been clearly warned in compliance with section 2033. … When good faith requires that a party deny only a part of a matter of which an admission is requested, or that he qualify his response thereto, he shall specify so much of it as is true and deny or qualify only the remainder

People v. White

122 Cal. App. 2d 551 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 18, 1954

It is established that to support a conviction of perjury the false oath must be one authorized or required by law (People v. Brophy, 49 Cal.App.2d 15 [ 120 P.2d 946 ]; People v. … This rule was clearly stated in People v.

Paramount Petroleum Corp. v. Superior Court

227 Cal. App. 4th 226 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 20, 2014

If this motion is granted, then barring settlement, the amount of damages would be established at trial.” … But establishing that there is no affirmative defense to a cause of action does not establish the merits of that cause of action.19 For the summary adjudication provision of the summary judgment statute to permit a plaintiff

Orozco v. Dept. of Transportation CA2/3

California Court of Appeal · Mar 10, 2026

Plaintiffs assert Caltrans failed to establish design immunity because it did not submit substantial evidence showing the reasonableness of its design. … Plaintiffs concede that Caltrans established the first two elements of design immunity; they challenge only the third element. The third element “is a matter for the courts, not the jury, to decide.” (Tansavatdi v.

Stephenson v. Stephenson

65 Cal. App. 2d 120 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 3, 1944

Appellant was named as executrix of the will and qualified as such on April 23, 1941. Respondent is the son and only child of decedent by a former marriage. … All of the interested parties were then before the court and the issues were clearly set forth.

Sorrels v. Sorrels

105 Cal. App. 2d 465 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 16, 1951

The court has a broad discretion in determining whether such advantages are offered by the respective parents, and whether they are equal, but if the evidence clearly establishes that the children will have equal advantages … ’s established mode of living; that ordinarily a change will not be ordered for alleged unfitness of the one having custody without a showing that the welfare of the child clearly requires it.

City of Bakersfield v. West Park Home Owners Assn. and Friends

4 Cal. App. 5th 1199 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 31, 2016

The three proposed revenue sources qualify as special funds. … Therefore, these fees qualify as special funds. ii. The nexus requirement is satisfied.

Taylor-Rush v. Multitech Corp.

217 Cal. App. 3d 103 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 12, 1990

Thus, sufficient minimum contacts were established for personal jurisdiction. … Mihlon , however, does not mention Calder or Keeton , and the cases it cites as support of immunity for nonresident corporate officers and directors predate those Supreme Court decisions.

Kendis v. Cohn

90 Cal. App. 41 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 10, 1928

The rule in Dumpor’s case has virtually been overturned by another doctrine established in regard to conditions. … Supp. 563 ], That caso is clearly distinguishable from the present case and cases here cited.

People v. Roberts

California Court of Appeal · Sep 17, 2021

He characterized it as “clearly antemortem.” Reiber relied on the fact that there was “obvious reddening of the edges. You can see very clearly that this wound is reddened.” … Moreover, the evidence clearly established that defendant habitually carried knives, so Shelton’s testimony would not have been materially helpful on the point defendant sought to make about S.L.

Cutler v. Franchise Tax Bd.

California Court of Appeal · Sep 2, 2014

if the taxpayer purchased other qualified small business stock within 60 days. … In this case, we are convinced the trial court’s decision was clearly wrong. 1. The Governing Principles The principles applicable to an attorney fee award under section 1021.5 are these.

Moore v. Levy

128 Cal. App. 687 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 14, 1933

In contemplation of the foregoing well established rule of law, the judgment is not excessive.” The next point is that the award to Victor A. Moore for damages to his automobile is not supported by the evidence. … Plaintiff Moore testified that no parts were replaced in the car that were not damaged or injured by the collision but that statement is a conclusion of the witness and there was no testimony showing that he was qualified

Carter v. Dept. of Veterans Affairs

17 Cal. Rptr. 3d 674 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 1, 2004

Loss of tangible job benefits shall not be necessary in order to establish harassment." … Plaintiff argued that the first and third sentences of section 12940(j)(1) are not qualified by limitation to specific persons.

Lopez v. Quaempts CA3

California Court of Appeal · Nov 29, 2021

And the qualified nature of Indian sovereignty modifies that principle only by placing a tribe’s immunity, like its other governmental powers and attributes, in Congress’s hands.” (Michigan, at pp. 788-789.) … Lopez fails to show that the Tribe unequivocally and clearly waived its sovereign immunity from suit in this case.

1100 PARK LANE ASSOCIATES v. Feldman

74 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 25, 2008

As noted above, Park Lane’s filing of the unlawful detainer action clearly fell within the litigation privilege. … The notice to quit was clearly connected to and logically related to the unlawful detainer action.

Price v. Eisan

194 Cal. App. 2d 363 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 27, 1961

Defendants contend that Shaw testified that he was representing both parties and this testimony established the dual agency. … While such is the law, those eases are clearly distinguishable on their facts from the instant case.

City and County of San Francisco v. Grant Co.

181 Cal. App. 3d 1085 · California Court of Appeal · May 20, 1986

A restaurant is clearly not “housing” as so defined. *1090 Subdivision (a), not (b), is the provision found violated here. … In those few cases which hold that a governmental body may be estopped by the conduct of its officers, “the facts clearly established that a grave injustice would be done if estoppel were not applied, and it did not appear

Wilson v. Board of Supervisors

154 Cal. App. 2d 101 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 27, 1957

No contention was made in the trial court that the petition was not signed by the requisite number of registered voters, and while the certificate of the clerk could have been more explicit we think it was clearly sufficient … Further, under no circumstance could the qualified electors of an area be held to be a special commission within the meaning of the constitutional provision.

Christina C. v. County of Orange CA4/3

220 Cal. App. 4th 1371 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 1, 2013

Paetkau (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 151, 162-163 [“mere speculation . . . is insufficient to establish a triable issue of fact”].) … Plaintiffs invoke Santosky, 16 supra, 455 U.S. 745, noting there the high court “clearly established the constitutional protection[] of familial bonds and the right to due

People v. Martin

114 Cal. App. 3d 739 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 16, 1981

Thus, the issue is clearly joined. … [s]hould the law extend its rule of immunity ... to all those persons for whose deviant conduct there may be some psychiatric explanation, the processes of the law would break down and society would be forced to find other