Case law

Consumer Cause, Inc. v. Smilecare

110 Cal. Rptr. 2d 627 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 9, 2001

A chemical is “known to the state to cause . . . reproductive toxicity . . . if in the opinion of the state’s qualified experts it has been clearly shown through scientifically valid testing according to generally accepted … establishes an affirmative defense to that cause of action.”

People v. Westlund

87 Cal. App. 4th 652 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 5, 2001

Respondent urges that the possession of a silencer qualifies as a public welfare offense, thus falling within a well-recognized exception of this general rule mandating the prosecution establish mens rea. … This testimony belies appellant’s contention on appeal that “it is clearly possible appellant could have been unaware of the presence of the silencer affixed to [the rifle].”

Kurtz, Richards, Wilson & Co. v. Insurance Communicators Marketing Corp.

12 Cal. App. 4th 1249 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 27, 1993

ERISA contains safeguards to preclude abuse and frustration of the comprehensive system of federal regulation it establishes. (Ingersoll-Rand v. … The court concluded that the claim was preempted, since ERISA made the content of the booklet immune from state regulation. (Id. at p. 259.)

Lin v. State of Cal. ex. rel. Dept. of Transportation CA2/6

California Court of Appeal · Oct 16, 2023

“To establish the immunity, the entity must establish: ‘ “ ‘(1) [a] causal relationship between the plan and the accident; (2) discretionary approval of the plan prior to construction; [and] (3) substantial evidence supporting … Even where there is a showing of “a significant accident history,” that “is insufficient to establish loss of design immunity where plaintiffs have failed to show a change in physical conditions from those existing at the

Fink v. Shemtov

180 Cal. App. 4th 1160 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 5, 2010

Medical Board (2000) 22 Cal.4th 660, 669 [ 94 Cal.Rptr.2d 61 , 995 P.2d 191 ], the California Supreme Court explained, “a summary denial of a writ petition on a pretrial issue does not establish the law of the case.” … In his opening brief, Fink argues the trial court “clearly erred when [it] determined [its] own bias by striking the recusal motion.”

O'Shea v. General Telephone Co.

193 Cal. App. 3d 1040 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 24, 1987

If the privilege is a qualified one rather than an absolute one, malice becomes an issue. … He thought that he could relate better in a person to person contact, but the officers were clearly concerned about his ability to get along with people.

Stephens v. Chambers

34 Cal. App. 660 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 17, 1917

a statute, cannot so deal with particulars as to meet or provide for every case or contingency which may arise and of which legislative cognizance is allowable if necessary to the complete enjoyment of those privileges, immunities … Congress could have exercised no power or established no other policy more conducive to the general welfare of our government and the people, for no government can long exist with its people radically divided in sentiment

Silver v. Cast & Crew Production etc. CA2/2

California Court of Appeal · Jan 29, 2021

This statute immunized respondents’ actions, and Silver has failed to establish otherwise. … There is no public/private qualifier. We need not comment on Silver’s arguments any further.

Xu v. Huang

California Court of Appeal · Jan 11, 2022

However, as discussed in FilmOn, and as we explain below, such an attenuated connection is not enough to establish protected activity. … Thus, the “contextual cues” clearly align with FilmOn. (FilmOn, supra, 7 Cal.5th at p. 148.)18 18 Citing Terry v.

Old Homestead Bakery, Inc. v. Marsh

75 Cal. App. 247 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 18, 1925

to the law in respect to the privileges and immunities conferred by it or the acts which it prohibits.” … The burden of highway maintenance as between motor vehicles and horse-drawn vehicles is as clearly pronounced. . . .

Adoption of Baby Boy W.

232 Cal. App. 4th 438 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 15, 2014

Here, although Garrett clearly intended to 24 involve his parents in Baby Boy W.' … Jacqueline prevented Garrett from qualifying as a presumed father under section 7611 solely by refusing to sign the voluntary declaration of paternity, which led to protracted litigation over whether Garrett qualified

People v. McCoy

40 Cal. App. 4th 778 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 30, 1995

The County’s manager of jury services, Tim Benton, explained the procedure for summoning, qualifying, and excluding prospective jurors. … Clearly the County should not have routinely excused persons 70 and over who did not request excuses. (See Code Civ.

People v. Burks

189 Cal. App. 2d 313 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 21, 1961

There is no merit in the argument, for section 1265 clearly provides the jurisdiction of the trial and appellate courts, after the issuance of the remittitur, to act with respect to subsequent proceedings in the ease, and … It has been established that where such relief is possible because requested during proper proceedings, the statute is only permissive. (People v.

People v. Gomez

California Court of Appeal · Dec 23, 2015

Penal Code section 1170.18 clearly states that a defendant must show that he was convicted of a felony but would have been convicted of a misdemeanor if Proposition 47 had been in effect at the time of the offense. … The record of conviction does not establish this fact as he entered a guilty plea and waived his right to a probation referral.

People v. Robinson CA1/4

California Court of Appeal · Mar 6, 2023

Masters also noted that other evidence established the defendant’s guilt, including a note in the defendant’s handwriting admitting his involvement. (Id. at p. 1053.) … Moreover, the video is highly probative, establishing Robinson’s direct involvement in the shootout in which his admitted friends used the gun that killed Robert C.

Bruce v. Sibeck

25 Cal. App. 2d 691 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 13, 1938

The syllabus clearly defines the right of arresting officers to seize property used in the commission of the offense for which the defendant is arrested. … It is there held that the statutory immunity from unreasonable searches and seizures relates only to such as are unreasonable in the light of common-law traditions.

Young v. Tri-City Healthcare District

210 Cal. App. 4th 35 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 17, 2012

The anti-SLAPP statutory protections do not clearly apply as a matter of law. (Pt. V, post.) … The District’s reasoning in attempting to defend a clearly erroneous dismissal order makes no sense.

Klein v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc.

202 Cal. App. 4th 1342 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 25, 2012

First, the court would have to determine whether a particular facility qualified as a *1365 “skilled nursing facility” within the meaning of section 1276.5, and, if so, whether the facility qualified for any of the exceptions … At the pleadings stage, these allegations are sufficient to establish standing. *1376 b.

In re D.C.

California Court of Appeal · Dec 17, 2015

Because use immunity applies to his "course of treatment ordered as part of the reunification plan" (In re Lamonica H., supra, 220 Cal.App.3d at p. 650), the immunity would apply to the identified case objectives as well … the minor is a person described by Section 300, the court may limit the control to be exercised over the dependent child by any 22 parent or guardian and shall by its order clearly

Mehling v. Zigman

116 Cal. App. 2d 729 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 17, 1953

when so driving does any act forbidden by law or neglects any duty imposed by law in the driving of such vehicle, which act or neglect proximately causes bodily injury to any person, is guilty of a felony. ’ ’ This was clearly … In the instant ease no instructions were offered by appellants to qualify the instruction complained of.