Case law

People v. Erwin

20 Cal. App. 4th 1542 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 14, 1993

The Supreme Court rejected the argument, noting that reliability was assured by the experience and training requirements of the statute, the right of cross-examination of the qualified investigating officer, and the defendant … She can establish that at the time in question the alleged child witness had a large, recent colored bruise located high in the inner thigh of one leg clearly visible on that day. [fl] 6.

Board of Supervisors v. McMahon

219 Cal. App. 3d 286 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 29, 1990

established and it appears that irreparable injury will flow from its refusal. … ‘A municipal corporation, created by a state for the better ordering of government, has no privileges or immunities under the federal constitution which it may invoke in opposition to the will of its creator.

Strauss v. Board of Supervisors

181 Cal. App. 2d 133 · California Court of Appeal · May 20, 1960

been filed; and it clearly has the duty under section 34318 to call an election, unless sufficient, qualified protests have been filed to defeat its jurisdiction and duty so to proceed. … Code, §§ 34303-34311) are clearly of the type mentioned in In re Mosher, supra, and Hawley v.

City of Bell v. Superior Court

220 Cal. App. 4th 236 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 4, 2013

the California Supreme Court articulated the appropriate standard of review for the interpretation of noninsurance indemnity agreements: ―subject to public policy and 13 established … The language of the indemnity clause clearly applies to third-party civil actions, not criminal complaints and indictments.

Brown v. Superior Court

180 Cal. App. 3d 701 · California Court of Appeal · May 2, 1986

They state that during the criminal trial, Donna and Henry Boorstin were granted immunity to testify, and Steven Boorstin and William Boorstin testified without immunity. … Their earlier failures to respond to the interrogatories are clearly pertinent to the question of the appropriate sanctions for their continuing misconduct.

Hinton v. Bahrs

18 Cal. App. 53 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 22, 1912

And further ‘That applicants who qualify in this examination be eligible only for appointment to permanent positions carrying salaries of $1,440 or less. ’ That prior to said March 30, 1909, there had been created by said … “shall be competitive among such members of the next lower rank established by the Commission for each department.”

Hodges v. Lochhead

217 Cal. App. 2d 199 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 14, 1963

It is my position that it is calling for an opinion of a person who is not qualified to give an opinion.” … The trial proceedings clearly show that plaintiff never intended to abandon her claim for damages nor did the defendants ever make any contention during the trial that she had.

Rosin v. Superior Court

181 Cal. App. 2d 486 · California Court of Appeal · May 31, 1960

The evidence clearly establishes the truth of the allegations of the affidavit and the case resolves itself into a basic question of whether destruction of custody and visitation rights in the manner found here does constitute … Immunity is once more obtained because the new plan was not specifically enjoined. And so a whole series of wrongs is perpetrated and a decree of enforcement goes for naught.

Ca v. William S. Hart Union High School Dist.

189 Cal. App. 4th 1166 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 5, 2010

This court should clearly say so. … "It is clearly unsound to afford immunity to a negligent defendant because the intervening force, the very anticipation of which made his conduct negligent, has brought about the expected harm. . . .

In Re Gomez

179 Cal. App. 4th 1272 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 2, 2009

This establishes a maximum release date. … By the Department’s reckoning, the Legislature clearly expressed its preference that “any person who is convicted” of a “ ‘violent felony’ ” is subject to the worktime credit limitations of section 2933.1(a).

Dobbins v. Horsfall

58 Cal. App. 2d 23 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 8, 1943

written contract, dated September 1,1937, or the subsequent oral agreements, and in either event under the decisions, the action having been based upon a contract between the parties, the allegations of the cross-complaint clearly … This simply established a conflict in the evidence and *29 under rules too well known to require citation of authority we are not authorized to disturb the conclusion arrived at by the trier of facts.

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.

In Re Wanomi P.

216 Cal. App. 3d 156 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 30, 1989

In addition thereto the Treaty of Ghent, (Exhibit B, same brief) and the Treaty of Amity, Commerce and Navigation (Exhibit A, same brief) clearly grants to the Mic Mac Tribe of Canada the same status as the Indian Tribes … "Such acknowledgment shall also mean that the tribe is entitled to the immunities and privileges available to other federally acknowledged Indian tribes by virtue of their status as Indian tribes as well as the responsibilities

Lake Forest Community Assn. v. County of Orange

86 Cal. App. 3d 394 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 16, 1978

Nevertheless, both the legislative history of section 224 and the regulation clearly indicate that such property, if it would otherwise constitute “household furnishings,” was intended to be exempt. … The use of the property made by Association’s members is clearly “household” use, that is, it is the kind of use customarily made of such personal property by members of a family in connection with their home or residence

People v. Weathers

274 Cal. App. 2d 232 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 23, 1969

It is unnecessary to reach this latter question because the testimony contained in the transcript clearly did not qualify as proper evidence of modus operandi. … Thus, the relevance of Poll’s testimony hinged on whether it helped establish the identity of defendant as the accomplice.

Contra Costa County v. Pinole Point Properties, LLC

235 Cal. App. 4th 914 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 3, 2015

This immunity extended to public entities. (Archer v. City of Los Angeles (1941) 19 Cal.2d 19, overruled on another issue as stated in Locklin, at p. 337.) … Evidence in the record, although not cited by Pinole Point, clearly supported the trial court’s findings.

Bui v. Ky

California Court of Appeal · May 8, 2024

Second, the court analyzed whether plaintiff met her burden of establishing the minimal merit of her claims. … Barrett, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 39), there are recognized outer bounds of such immunity.

Investors Equity v. Schmidt

California Court of Appeal · Feb 4, 2015

Also ‘[a]s to any application of Hawaii law, including the possible direct or indirect application of principles of sovereign immunity, it has not been established that even if the case remained in California . . . a California … Defendants asserted that all of these findings “are now the law of the case going forward,” and argued the first two were sufficient to establish Hawaii’s suitability as an alternative forum, while the third demonstrated

P. ex rel. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Rubin

California Court of Appeal · Jul 12, 2021

Under the anti-SLAPP statute, a defendant ordinarily has the burden of establishing a plaintiff’s claims arise from its protected activity; if the defendant met its burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to establish … If we protect the reports and claims under section 425.16 because they eventually could be used in connection with an official proceeding, we would effectively be providing immunity for any kind of criminal fraud so long

Provience v. Valley Clerks Trust Fund

163 Cal. App. 3d 249 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 28, 1984

Concluding plaintiff’s fourth cause of action was clearly preempted by ERISA, the court dismissed it. {Id., at p. 392.) … As we have already discussed, ERISA mandates that the contents of these booklets are immune from effective regulation by California tort law.