Case law

Rodas v. Dept. of Transportation CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · Dec 29, 2023

Concealed Trap The second Tansavatdi factor to establish liability for failure to warn requires a plaintiff to establish “the dangerous condition qualified as a concealed trap, i.e., ‘would not [have been] reasonably … Although the verdict form did not ask whether the dangerous condition qualified as a concealed trap, the jury was instructed with the standard jury instruction for signage immunity under section 830.8, which stated, “A public

Bell v. H.F. Cox, Inc.

209 Cal. App. 4th 62 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 5, 2012

It found that all of Cox’s drivers and all of its trucks were qualified for interstate hauls and that some drivers had been randomly assigned to interstate routes. … The court noted that, in requesting volunteers, Cox made it clear that no driver was immune from being assigned to drive an interstate route.

People v. Rahbari

232 Cal. App. 4th 185 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 10, 2014

“A trial court has broad discretion in determining whether a sufficient foundation has been laid to qualify evidence as a business record. … Appellant has failed to establish prejudice from any deficient performance in this regard.

People v. Darcy

59 Cal. App. 2d 342 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 25, 1943

Information required in registration is material, its purpose being to make sure that only qualified persons register and vote. … The cases cited in the majority opinion clearly and properly establish that principle.

Chiang v. County of Los Angeles CA2/1

California Court of Appeal · Jan 15, 2014

The County submitted evidence that other candidates were given the day shift because they were qualified and did not have a record of disputes with coworkers. … The court’s determination of a proper award of fees will not be disturbed on appeal unless it clearly constitutes an abuse of discretion. (PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1096.)

ABM Industries Overtime Cases

California Court of Appeal · Jan 10, 2018

“A person is qualified to testify as an expert if he has special knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education sufficient to qualify him as an expert on the subject to which his testimony relates.” (Evid. … of the hearsay rule when establishing prior expert qualification via judicially noticed court order.

People v. Godlewski

17 Cal. App. 4th 940 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 5, 1993

Essentially, he argued that the People’s circumstantial evidence case against him did not establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury disagreed and found him guilty of first degree murder. … The defense sought to cross-examine the accomplice about discussions he had with his attorney prior to the grant of immunity.

Khan v. Medical Board

12 Cal. App. 4th 1834 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 5, 1993

Neither section 2234 nor 2264 *1845 contains qualifying words such as knowingly or intentionally, though such words are used in other sections of article 12. … Accepting for the sake of argument that appellant established mistake of fact in his defense, he has not established that the finding must be reversed.

In Re Means

31 Cal. App. 2d 290 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 1, 1939

This ordinance is entitled “An ordinance regulating plumbing in the City of Sacramento; providing for the examination of and issuance of certificates of registration to qualified plumbers; ...” … That the supplying of water, and the removal of water borne waste is a municipal affair is clearly established in Metropolitan Water Dist. v. Superior Court, 2 Cal. (2d) 4 [ 37 Pac. (2d) 1,041 ] ; Smith v.

Clay v. Tryk

177 Cal. App. 3d 119 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 3, 1986

“Shared housing” does not include situations where an established or proven landlord-tenant relationship exists. … This latitude in administering relief was qualified in Mooney v.

Riddick v. City of Malibu

California Court of Appeal · Feb 22, 2024

Deference to the City’s Interpretation Defendants maintain that we should give “great deference” to their interpretation of section 13.4.1 and adopt it unless clearly erroneous. … “It is an established principle that where statutory language is unambiguous, a court is precluded from considering legislative history. (See, e.g., People v.

Whitlow v. Wolfe

82 Cal. App. 2d 610 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 25, 1947

While the instrument is called an option and recites that the respondent agrees to sell and convey the property to the appellants, this is qualified by the phrase “on the following-terms and conditions.” … Under well-established rules, it clearly appears that the appellants were not entitled to specific performance in any form.

Tenet/Centinela Hospital Medical Center v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

80 Cal. App. 4th 1041 · California Court of Appeal · May 18, 2000

Sections 4061 and 4062 of the Labor Code establish the procedures for resolving such disagreements. … However, this presumption shall not apply where both parties select qualified medical examiners.”

Snelgrove v. Department of Motor Vehicles

194 Cal. App. 3d 1364 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 22, 1987

Unlike statutes that clearly authorize exceptions to the hearsay rule, section 14108 does not reflect any factors providing the necessary competency, reliability, and trustworthiness that would transform the SR 1 report into … Here, as in Mackler , the sworn statement qualified for admission without the officer’s testimony.

Mikels v. Rager

232 Cal. App. 3d 334 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 16, 1991

Exhibit ‘A’ conveys no land whatsoever included in Parcel Map No. 4013, as can be clearly seen in Exhibit ‘B’, the map to which Exhibit ‘A’ refers. … If Almond was to be a road the deeds would have said so as they clearly did for Bella Vista Street.”

Fenton v. Board of Directors

156 Cal. App. 3d 1107 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 7, 1984

On December 1, 1981, the district’s board of directors held a public hearing to determine whether or not respondent was, at that time, a resident of the district and thus qualified to hold office as a director pursuant to … The evidence clearly established that when respondent moved to Big Oak Flat in 1949 it became her domicile.

Young v. Governing Board of the Oxnard School District

40 Cal. App. 3d 769 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 19, 1974

Many, if not most, employees will request a hearing, thereby establishing a record open to all future employers. … Based on the law established in Tupman v. Haberkern, 208 Cal. 256 [ 280 P. 970 ], we must decline to do so.

Lion Raisins v. Ross

California Court of Appeal · May 25, 2021

But the CMA requires that marketing orders establish an advisory board to assist the Department in the administration of the order. (§§ 58841, 58842.) … the RBA qualified as a marketing association because it was involved in marketing

Estate of Canfield

80 Cal. App. 2d 443 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 18, 1947

In short, the trustor established not merely a spendthrift trust but a discretionary trust as well. … There our Supreme Court held that the immunity enjoyed under the terms of this trust by an allocation of trust net income to a debtor beneficiary does not extend as against actions brought under Civil Code, section 859, by

Marxen v. Herron

129 Cal. App. 479 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 6, 1933

Marxen was appointed and qualified as receiver of the estate of said bankrupts. … Clearly the pleader alleges conduct which he asserts was for the mere purpose of making it appear that an abandonment had occurred.