Case law

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.

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

Beckley v. Reclamation Board

205 Cal. App. 2d 734 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 20, 1962

Clearly, therefore, the only adequate method of preventing this result was the unification of the individualistic and antagonistic efforts .. . into one comprehensive co-ordinating plan. ...” … The rules asserted above establish liability on the part of the state, regardless of negligence in the execution of the flood control plan.

Hodge v. Weinstock, Lubin & Co.

109 Cal. App. 393 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 8, 1930

In a proper case, as here, other and qualifying instructions follow. … No mention is made of any other or qualifying instructions. In Pierce v. United Gas & Elec.

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.

People v. Reddick

176 Cal. App. 2d 806 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 31, 1959

He dated the application June 10, 1956, and accompanied it with a statement, also dated June 10, 1956, stating that he believed he was qualified to take the examination. … Nolan to practice medicine and surgery in Maryland, acts which are clearly forbidden by Business and Professions Code, section 580.

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

People v. Wade

71 Cal. App. 2d 646 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 13, 1945

Bach of the several police officers concerned in the matter testified clearly and unequivocally to the general effect that at no time was any force or coercion used nor were any threats made or promises of immunity or reward … It is well settled law that the corpus delicti may be established without proof that the crime was committed by the person charged therewith, and that slight evidence is sufficient to establish the same.

Aguilar v. Universal City Studios, Inc.

174 Cal. App. 3d 384 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 14, 1985

The court acknowledged labeling the story fiction “does not insure immunity when a reasonable man would understand that the fictional character was a portrayal of the plaintiff.” (Id., at p. 143.) … In contrast, “Bertha” is clearly “in” with the gang. She goes to gang parties, dances with gang members and behaves in a way that suggests she is a member of the gang. Ms.

People v. DeWitt

142 Cal. App. 3d 146 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 21, 1983

A review of the record clearly establishes that the evidence, although primarily circumstantial, reasonably supports the magistrate’s finding of a conspiracy to commit robbery. (Cf. People v. … Furthermore, he has previously qualified as an expert on numerous occasions regarding robbery and the conduct of its perpetrators. 6 Detective Giroud opined that the stolen nature of the vehicle would have been quite relevant

People v. Brown

198 Cal. App. 2d 253 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 20, 1961

As respondent states, ‘‘ Certainly if there were uneontradicted evidence in this record which established that appellant made the statement because of promises of leniency and the release of his automobile, it would have … We are satisfied that the Harmon incident clearly did so. As to the car, Inspector Bridges’ words of “fair” and “considerate,” were possibly equivocal.

People v. Johnson

5 Cal. App. 3d 844 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 24, 1970

The double punishment which has been imposed is clearly prohibited by Penal Code section 654 and the cases which have interpreted it. … The uncontradicted evidence establishes the pill contained amphetamine, but it does not establish, as a matter of law, it contained a sufficient quantity of the drug to come within statutory prohibitions.

People v. Mendibles

199 Cal. App. 3d 1277 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 30, 1988

The latter finding clearly is supported by the evidence. … A defendant’s reiterated denial of guilt and the principal facts that purportedly establish it does not justify the prosecution’s introduction of new evidence to establish that which defendant would clearly have denied from

Geilim v. Superior Court

234 Cal. App. 3d 166 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 20, 1991

The quoted language clearly requires an intention on the part of the client to abuse the attorney-client relationship, . . .’ (Glade v. Superior Court (1978) 76 Cal.App.3d 738, 746 [ 143 Cal.Rptr. 119 ]. … Kizer addressed the discoverability of a medical study of health effects, attorney work product subject to the conditional or qualified privilege.

Doolittle v. McConnell

65 Cal. App. 680 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 21, 1924

The case is one where ‘the context clearly indicates’ (Civ. … Also, “The case is one where ‘the context clearly indicates’ (Civ.

Quintilliani v. Mannerino

62 Cal. App. 4th 54 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 12, 1998

The first two causes of action for legal malpractice are clearly barred by the statute of limitations of section 340.6, and are not the subject of this appeal. … Mannerino clearly agreed to perform administrative consulting services, neither the fifth cause of action nor the factual declarations establish that he breached the agreement as to the performance of those services.

Pensinger v. Bowsmith, Inc.

60 Cal. App. 4th 709 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 5, 1998

“However, unlike with race or sex discrimination, there are situations in alleged disability discrimination cases where an employer clearly did not know and could not have known of an employee’s disability. … Regardless of whether plaintiff established he suffered from a qualifying mental disability or whether he was qualified with or without accommodation to perform his job, he did not produce any evidence Bow-smith knew of his

People v. Hardy

California Court of Appeal · Apr 22, 2026

Miller and Heller establish that short-barreled shotguns are not entitled to Second Amendment protection. … [LCMs] thus fall clearly within the category of accessories, or accoutrements, rather than arms.” (Ibid.) Nor is an LCM “necessary to operate any firearm.” (Id. at p. 868.)

Anderson v. County of Santa Barbara

56 Cal. App. 3d 780 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 30, 1976

The declarations establish also that if all disqualified ballots are counted against the proposition, it still prevails. … “[A] qualified voter has a constitutional right to vote in elections without having his vote wrongfully denied, debased, or diluted.” (Hadley v.