Case law

Paul v. Friedman

117 Cal. Rptr. 2d 82 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 29, 2002

Paul has clearly established a probability he will prevail on the claim, regardless of whether it was otherwise subject to a special motion to strike. 31 Disposition The order is reversed insofar as it granted Friedman’s … That argument, however, bears only on the issue whether Paul can establish a probability of prevailing on the merits of his claims.

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.)

Spillman v. City and County of San Francisco

252 Cal. App. 2d 782 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 25, 1967

The defense also established, during cross-examination of Dr. Rodgers, that he had referred plaintiff to a psychiatrist, Dr. Hoch, in early April 1963. … The defense also established that certain statutes enacted in 1957 (Bus. & Prof.

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

People v. J. Clyde K.

192 Cal. App. 3d 710 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 12, 1987

According to the court, “It is true that section 940 does not on its face refer to use immunities. … Hill, supra, 66 Cal.2d 536 , the California Supreme Court established a standard to determine whether statements by the police were merely exhortations to tell the truth or promises of benefit or leniency.

People v. Esayian

5 Cal. Rptr. 3d 542 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 23, 2003

Forensic Nurses’ phlebotomists are so qualified and that the County is and has been well aware of this fact. … Clearly a blood draw is a medical procedure and must be conducted in keeping with medical requirements for such procedure.

Sales v. City of Tustin CA4/3

California Court of Appeal · Sep 12, 2024

In an interlocutory appeal, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals determined the officers’ conduct did not violate the Fourth Amendment, and the officers were “entitled to qualified immunity, because they did not violate a clearly … established constitutional right.”

People v. Curtis

106 Cal. App. 2d 321 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 28, 1951

Curtis and Hyman had a telephone conversation which clearly referred to the visit of the officer to the Bell address on July 20. … An examiner of questioned documents employed by the Police Department of Los Angeles, who qualified as an expert, testi *329 fied that in his opinion betting markers found at the Bell and Glendale bookmaking establishments

Architectural Heritage Ass'n v. County of Monterey

19 Cal. Rptr. 3d 469 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 30, 2004

The jail structure does appear, however, to qualify as potentially eligible for listing on the CRHR under criterion 2 ... .” … However, this structure does appear to qualify as potentially eligible for listing on the National Register under criterion B . . . .”

AmeriGas Propane, LP v. Landstar Ranger, Inc.

230 Cal. App. 4th 1153 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 24, 2014

“It is well established that the right to indemnity flows from payment of a joint legal obligation on another’s behalf. [Citations.] … The court clearly states its findings that, as a matter of law, Landstar did not commit any independent negligent acts and none of the FMCSRs applied to Landstar regarding King’s accident.

People v. John W.

185 Cal. App. 3d 801 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 19, 1986

, usually by expert testimony, and [(]2) the witness furnishing such testimony must be properly qualified as an expert to give an opinion on the subject.” … Based upon these standards, there was clearly no acceptable showing in this case that the physical test was a reliable means of diagnosing sexual deviancy. Dr.

DP Pham LLC v. Cheadle

246 Cal. App. 4th 653 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 15, 2016

Galla was copied on both communications and both clearly identified Kimes as an attorney. … establish the communication was not confidential or that the privilege does not for other reasons apply.”

Muddy Waters v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal · Apr 6, 2021

Such statements are clearly made “in connection with an issue of public interest.” (§ 425.16, subd. (e)(3).) … “Conspiracy is not an independent tort; it cannot create a duty or abrogate an immunity.

Raining Data Corp. v. Barrenechea

175 Cal. App. 4th 1363 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 26, 2009

Neither the cross-complaint nor the parties’ submissions in connection with the anti-SLAPP motion clearly define when the communications occurred, or what their nature was. … “Although a cross-complaint may be subject to a section 425.16 motion, not all cross-complaints would qualify as SLAPP suits.

People v. Mitchell

244 Cal. App. 2d 176 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 11, 1966

*178 Defendant also contends, without merit, that the marijuana found in his possession was the product of an illegal search, that evidence of his confessions to the police was improperly-admitted, and that the evidence established … He clearly does not bring himself within the principle of constitutional law which was so carefully delineated in Woody, supra.

Podd v. Anderson

215 Cal. App. 2d 660 · California Court of Appeal · May 2, 1963

Snavely on June 8, 1961, and that said Marguerite Podd at all times thereafter was the duly appointed, qualified and acting guardian ad litem of said Alice R. Snavely, and that said Alice R. … This was clearly an error. The evidence is sufficient to show that she intended to convey the northwest quarter less what she had conveyed to Rockwell.

Roth Drug, Inc. v. Johnson

13 Cal. App. 2d 720 · California Court of Appeal · May 11, 1936

Clearly this last sentence applies only to urgency measures, the specific manner of the enacting of which has just been prescribed. … It was established by the merchants as a matter of accommodation to enable them to collect the tax from their customers.

Fairman v. League of Women Voters of United States

179 Cal. App. 2d 535 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 7, 1960

But a gift to such an educational institution cannot qualify for a tax deduction under Section 812 (of 1939 Internal Revenue Code).” … The second purpose clearly is not educational.

McDonough v. Garrison

68 Cal. App. 2d 318 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 12, 1945

The evidence so introduced established the truth of the factual matters recited in the commissioner’s order of denial of October 16, 1942. … It seems clear that these eases establish the following two rules, the second of which is but a corollary of the first: 1.

County of L.A. Bd. Of Supervisors v. Super. Ct.

California Court of Appeal · Apr 13, 2015

The ACLU reads this phrase to mean that only communications containing legal advice or opinion qualify as confidential communications. … establish the communication was not confidential or that the privilege does not for other reasons apply.”