Case law

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.

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.

McCaskey v. CALIFORNIA STATE AUTOMOBILE ASSN.

189 Cal. App. 4th 947 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 29, 2010

The only suggestion of such a promise is in the earlier agreement, which the employer clearly meant the later agreement to supersede. … Plaintiffs clearly demonstrated their loyalty to CSAA through the remarkable number of years of their tenure.”

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.

Ferguson v. Fonner

87 Cal. App. 590 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 15, 1927

Proc., sec. 360), it being the purpose of the section to establish a rule not with respect to the character of the promise or acknowledgment from which a promise may be inferred, but with respect to the kind of evidence * … In his letter of August 29, 1922, appellant attempts to qualify the promise implied from the transaction of November 7, 1921, and to limit his obligation to such monthly payments as he might be able to make from his surplus

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.

Totten v. Board of Supervisors

43 Cal. Rptr. 3d 244 · California Court of Appeal · May 18, 2006

These two sections establish a minimum annual budget for Ventura County’s public safety agencies. … The revenue in the fund shall be allocated to “each qualified county in proportion to its share of the total taxable sales in all qualified counties during the most recent calendar year for which sales have been reported

Residential Capital, LLC v. CAL-WESTERNRE CONVEYANCE CORP.

134 Cal. Rptr. 2d 162 · California Court of Appeal · May 14, 2003

The Court of Appeal explained, “The comprehensive statutory framework established to govern nonjudicial foreclosure sales is intended to be exhaustive. [Citation.] … However, for a cause of action for negligent misrepresentation, clearly a representation is an essential element.

Kronen v. Pacific Coast Society of Orthodontists

237 Cal. App. 2d 289 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 30, 1965

(see fn. 2, ante) if he does not qualify for active membership after five years of associate membership, or if he does not become an active member within one year after he qualifies for active membership, his associate membership … It was clearly within the province of the trier of fact to accept the testimony of the two doctor sponsors and the related testimony of Drs. Hahn and Smith. The court could reasonably conclude that Drs.

People v. Gonzalez

California Court of Appeal · Jan 23, 2024

(b)(1)) also qualify as strikes. (People v. Briceno (2004) 34 Cal.4th 451, 462.) … Anderson (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 587, 600 [“Clearly, the Legislature intended that the qualifying status of a conviction would be fixed upon the date of the prior conviction, so that no subsequent actions . . . could alter

Page v. Insurance Co. of North America

3 Cal. App. 3d 121 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 30, 1969

Appealability of the Order of October 4, 1968 Plaintiff’s contention that the order from which this appeal is taken is nonappealable is so clearly mistaken that it deserves only very brief discussion. … Section 11580.2 of the Insurance Code, as amended in 1961, sets forth three separate conditions, all of which must be established to qualify a phantom vehicle as an uninsured motor vehicle. (Inter-Insurance Exchange v.

Harmon v. San Joaquin Light & Power Corp.

37 Cal. App. 2d 169 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 5, 1940

The jury was far better qualified to determine that question than is this court. The jurors observed that experiment and we did not. Those questions were addressed almost exclusively to the province of the jury. … That fatal result should clearly appear from the record. We are unable to say, as a matter of law, that the judgment in this case is so excessive as to warrant us in interfering with the finding of the jury.

People v. Lee

California Court of Appeal · Oct 3, 2019

These individuals, as well as their primary caregivers, were immune from criminal prosecution or sanction. (Ibid.) … It relied on Mower, supra, 28 Cal.4th 457, which held that status as a qualified patient under medical marijuana laws provides only limited immunity from prosecution in the form of an affirmative defense, not immunity from

Bonner v. City of Santa Ana

45 Cal. App. 4th 1465 · California Court of Appeal · May 31, 1996

A city is, after all, not immune from conversion claims. (See Tallmadge v. … (The other two rights were equal protection of the laws and the preclusion of an established religion.)

Friars Village Homeowners v. Hansing

California Court of Appeal · Oct 9, 2013

Hansing also contends the relationship rule violates the provisions of section 1357.100 et seq., which establish standards for operating rules for associations. … This right of self-nomination impliedly applies to a "qualified" candidate.

Tellefsen v. Key System Transit Lines

158 Cal. App. 2d 243 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 6, 1958

Appellants contend that the evidence is insufficient to establish a causal connection between the accident and this condition. … However, this reference to the res ipsa inference was qualified by the phrase “as you have been instructed,” and we are satisfied that the jury was not misled.

Best Animal Society v. Macerich Westside Pavilion Property LLC

193 Cal. App. 4th 168 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 2, 2011

In contrast, qualified labor activity is permitted in either a designated area or an area selected by Macerich that is proximately located to the targeted employer or business; the blackout days do not apply to qualified … Thus, Best Friends established that it was entitled to a preliminary injunction. IV. Injunctive relief will not result in a taking.

People v. Benjamin

77 Cal. App. 4th 264 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 30, 1999

At the preliminary hearing, the following facts were established: The warrant was served at 1:13 a.m. on January 16, 1998. … Jones, but his citation ( 986 F.2d 1231 ) and rendition of the facts clearly show that he meant to refer to U.S. v. Jacobs.

Joaquin v. City of Los Angeles

202 Cal. App. 4th 1207 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 23, 2012

It is the Board’s belief that Officer Joaquin clearly understood the complaint system and by reporting his allegations to his supervisor it would trigger a complaint against Sergeant Sands. … Were we to adopt a different standard, an employee could immunize his unreasonable and malicious internal complaints simply by filing a discrimination complaint with a government agency.

In re Forchion

198 Cal. App. 4th 1284 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 31, 2011

Moreover, petitioner’s motive is clearly criminal in that its purpose is clearly to enhance his business of selling Marijuana. This is clearly an unworthy motive, a criminal purpose, and is offensive to the public.’ … Again, this should not be mistaken for an effort to assist qualified patients under the California Compassionate Use Act of 1996.