Case law

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

Edwards v. Centex Real Estate Corp.

53 Cal. App. 4th 15 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 27, 1997

The bare possibility that the proceeding might be instituted is not to be used as a cloak to provide immunity for defamation when the possibility is not seriously considered.” … Clearly, there is no public policy favoring litigation for its own sake. The civil courts exist as a means of settling disputes between people, for the larger purpose of insuring social peace.

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.

Corporation of America v. Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'n

7 Cal. App. 2d 470 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 8, 1935

Familiar and long-established principles render a mortgage thus executed immune to collateral attack. … Under these circumstances, a collateral attack which is clearly technical in character is deserving of slight consideration.

Hennessy v. Title Insurance & Trust Co.

68 Cal. App. 235 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 24, 1924

No administration was ever had on the estate of Bridget Cassidy, deceased, until more than thirty-five years had elapsed after her death, "at which time plaintiff herein was appointed, qualified, .and at all times here involved … The principle is clearly announced in the leading case of McLeran v. Benton, 73 Cal. 329 [ 2 Am. St.

Town of Atherton v. Templeton

198 Cal. App. 2d 146 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 19, 1961

In any event, a legislative enactment clearly cannot be interpreted in such a manner as to ignore the plain meaning of its language. … where the court held that a municipal ordinance designed to regulate the carrying on of public laundries could not validly be applied in such a manner as to discriminate purely on a racial basis between persons otherwise qualified

Freeman v. Hale

30 Cal. App. 4th 1388 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 15, 1994

Consequently, falling on a dance floor because the operator negligently placed a slippery substance on the floor ‘clearly is not a risk (inherent in the sport) that is assumed by a *1395 participant.’ ” (Bush, supra, at p … while skiing was a contributing cause of the collision, that the consumption of alcoholic beverages is not an activity involved in the sport of skiing, and that therefore the rule of Knight does not provide Hale with total immunity

Reid v. Superior Court

44 Cal. App. 349 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 19, 1919

Reid is now and on and prior to the 11th day of May, 1918, was the duly elected, qualified and .acting district attorney of the County of Trinity, State of California.” … As a matter of fact, the cause for the removal does clearly appear therein.

Grillo v. Smith

144 Cal. App. 3d 868 · California Court of Appeal · May 24, 1983

The words “angry,” “shouted,” “stormed,” and “kangaroo court” fall clearly on the opinion side of the line. … Neither is it mentioned in the complaint, which is quite specific as to the Editorial but vague and general as to the Article. 2 Since defendants’ affidavits were clearly adequate to establish the accuracy of the Article,

Sweetwater Union HS Dist. v. Julian Union Elementary Sch.

California Court of Appeal · Jun 28, 2019

Sweetwater Qualified As a Successful Party Appellants assert that Sweetwater did not qualify as a successful party under section 1021.5 as a matter of law because: (1) it failed to achieve its primary goal, (2) the … Julian qualified as an opposing party liable for an attorney fee award under section 1021.5.

American Hospital Supply Corp. v. State Board of Equalization

169 Cal. App. 3d 1088 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 9, 1985

Regulation 1603, by its terms, applies to “restaurants, concessionaires, hotels, boarding houses, soda fountains, and similar establishments.” … State Bd. of Equalization, supra, 17 Cal.3d 86, 92 ) nor is it “clearly erroneous or unauthorized” (Ri vera v. City of Fresno, supra, 6 Cal.3d 132, 140).

Hewlett v. McDonald

98 Cal. App. 2d 639 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 26, 1950

The court in its order removing Hewlett as administrator finds: ‘ ‘ That George Hewlett is neither a fit, proper, competent nor qualified person to administer upon said estate. . . . … It has been *645 held that an appellate court should not interfere unless it is clearly shown that there has been a gross abuse of discretion.

Andreini & Co. v. MacCorkle Insurance Service, Inc.

219 Cal. App. 4th 1396 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 25, 2013

Stransky (1964) 229 Cal.App.2d 281, ‗[t]he necessity to set limits is obvious and dictates a close adherence to the clearly expressed legislative intent [citations]. … That would clearly qualify as ―new or different liabilit[y],‖ an ― ‗ ―increase[d] . . . liability,‖ ‘ ‖and thus a substantial change in the ― ‗legal consequences of past conduct.‘ ‖ (Quarry v.

Santa Fe Energy Co. v. State Board of Equalization

160 Cal. App. 3d 176 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 20, 1984

We reject plaintiff’s assertion that Davis Wire establishes two distinct tests for the identification of a party as a “seller.” … We direct plaintiff’s attention, however, to Davis Wire which establishes clearly that the characterization of a party as a “seller” within the meaning of section 6014 depends entirely upon the suitability of the assets to

Arntz Builders v. City of Berkeley

166 Cal. App. 4th 276 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 25, 2008

(Recommendation Relating to Sovereign Immunity, No. 8—Revisions of the Governmental Liability Act (Jan. 1965) 7 Cal. Law Revision Com. Rep. (1965) p. 417 (Revisions of Governmental Liability Act).) … (See Recommendation Relating to Sovereign Immunity, No. 2—Claims, Actions and Judgments Against Public Entities and Public Employees (Jan. 1963) 4 *289 Cal. Law Revision Com. Rep. (1963) p. 1043.)

Reyna v. McMahon

180 Cal. App. 3d 220 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 24, 1986

The AFDC program was established in 1935 to provide benefits to families whose children were needy because of the death or absence of a parent. (See Batterton v. … Section 11250.4 seems, at first blush, to clearly state that AFDC-U payments shall not be made to strikers to the extent required by federal law.

People v. Rancier

240 Cal. App. 2d 579 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 4, 1966

would also be an unwarranted departure from the accepted meaning of the words defined. ’ “The Supreme Court of the United States, taking the *584 statute precisely as it had been interpreted by the state court, held it immune … The class it did select is identified by the state court in terms which clearly show that the persons within that class constitute a dangerous element in the community which the legislature in its discretion could put under