Case law

Davey Tree Surgery Co. v. Occupational Safety & Health Appeals Board

167 Cal. App. 3d 1232 · California Court of Appeal · May 10, 1985

Gilliam’s 18-month training, which was completed about 3 months before the incident in question, qualified him as a foreperson. On the day in question Mr. Gilliam was “the working forefperson] .... … of the judicial power [citation], when an administrative agency is charged with enforcing a particular statute, its interpretation of the statute will be accorded great respect by the courts ‘and will be followed if not clearly

Hadley v. City of Ontario

43 Cal. App. 3d 121 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 15, 1974

The section clearly imports a duty on the part of the administrative agency to make findings as a basis for judicial review. (Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. … “It is likewise the policy of the City that if he cannot do so, or if he is unable or unwilling to accept som.e other position which he is physically and otherwise qualified to perform, his employment be terminated.

Beverage v. Apple, Inc.

California Court of Appeal · Apr 25, 2024

Midway Rent A Car, Inc. (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 954, 970 [since the UCL is written in the disjunctive, it establishes three varieties of unfair competition].) … As Apple points out, the court’s description of qualifying “safe harbors” in Cel-Tech was not limited solely to instances where explicit statutory language either authorizes conduct as lawful or imposes a litigation bar.

Medtronic USA v. Cal. Dept. of Tax & Fee Admin.

California Court of Appeal · Apr 16, 2025

Moreover, exemption statutes are strictly construed, being accepted only when clearly mandated, and rejected in any doubtful case. (E.g., Dicon Fiberoptics, Inc. v. … Unfortunately, those touches are too tenuous to establish the firm basis needed for an exemption.

Oak Valley Hospital Dist. v. State Dept. of Health Care Services

California Court of Appeal · Aug 10, 2020

In short, Oak Valley established that it did not, in fact, double claim in- house medical treatment as an allowable cost. … Regarding discounts for in-house treatments of employees, section 332.1 clearly provides that the amount of the discount is not an allowable cost.

Golden Eagle Refinery Co. v. Associated Internationall Insurance

102 Cal. Rptr. 2d 834 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 3, 2001

The qualified pollution exclusions, in effect, limit any pollution coverage afforded by the policies to damages caused by “sudden and accidental” or “sudden, unintended and unexpected” events. … “It is fairly deducidle from the cases that one of the essential attributes of the abuse of discretion is that it must clearly appear to effect injustice. [Citations.]

tenet/centinela Hosp. v. Wcab

95 Cal. Rptr. 2d 858 · California Court of Appeal · May 18, 2000

Sections 4061 and 4062 of the Labor Code establish the procedures for resolving such disagreements. … The requirement that we give great weight to the WCAB's interpretation of its regulations does not apply if it is clearly erroneous. ( Ralphs Grocery Co. v. Workers' Comp.

Albertsworth v. Glens Falls Indemnity Co.

84 Cal. App. 2d 816 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 13, 1948

There an appellant filed an appeal bond, but when the adverse party excepted to the sureties on the bond the sureties could not qualify. Thereupon, the appellant filed a new bond with sureties who did qualify. … The court stated that “the plaintiff most clearly had his *823 election of remedy to sue out execution upon his judgment or to sue upon the attachment bond.” (P. 355.) In a later suit (Chrisman v.

People v. Jaggers

120 Cal. App. 733 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 15, 1932

But it has gone no further in qualifying the language of the statute.’’ … From the fact that the witness’ testimony was of a damaging nature to the People’s case, the surprise referred to in the cases is clearly indicated.

Security Pacific National Bank v. Metcalf

58 Cal. App. 3d 197 · California Court of Appeal · May 13, 1976

Huntington in 1925 is, of course, of crucial importance in establishing his testamentary intent. … She was not qualified to express an opinion concerning the meaning and interpretation of language used by her father in his will.

Alfred v. County of Los Angeles

101 Cal. App. 3d 260 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 22, 1980

In its supporting memorandum in the trial court and its respondent’s brief on appeal, the county has demonstrated that the facts alleged clearly establish that plaintiff has received all the compensation he lawfully can receive … We will simply assume for purposes of argument that personal services do so qualify.

Brown v. Guy

144 Cal. App. 2d 659 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 26, 1956

Smith, an M.D. specializing in surgery and peripheral vascular diseases, a well-qualified expert. He first saw plaintiff at St. … Clearly the evidence is sufficient to support a verdict for plaintiff and hence afford a proper basis for the granting of a new trial. This conclusion does not reflect any weighing of opposing evidence.

People v. Pizarro

10 Cal. App. 4th 57 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 13, 1992

The court found Adams qualified as an expert “when it comes to DNA,” and found his testimony sufficient to establish the reliability of the procedure. … Nonetheless, as appellant points out, the DNA identification evidence clearly “sealed appellant’s fate.”

Meaney v. Sacramento Housing & Redevelopment Agency

13 Cal. App. 4th 566 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 17, 1993

But in die case of a county building constructed within city limits, the city and the county are each qualified to make only one of the determinations. … Since it does not serve the intended purpose of the statutory requirement, it may fail to qualify as a determination of fact demanded by section 33445.

Barber v. Rancho Mortgage & Investment Corp.

26 Cal. App. 4th 1819 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 28, 1994

She had the sole responsibility for deciding whether to qualify the Barbers for an owner-occupied loan. … Clearly, the evidence offered by the Barbers established prima facie discriminatory conduct ( 15 U.S.C. § 1691 (a); 42 U.S.C. § 1982 ).

Sobey v. Molony

40 Cal. App. 2d 381 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 13, 1940

The eases have clearly established the rule that such restatement, without substantial change, neutralizes any repeal, express or implied. … None of the eases cited by respondent establishes any different rule.

Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda

153 Cal. App. 2d 673 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 11, 1957

The worship of other gods would clearly fall within the exemption. Appellants, at oral argument, conceded that even idol worshipers would qualify for the exemption under the test advocated by them. … The other contentions of appellants on this point are clearly without merit and need not be discussed.

Vaughn v. Bixby

24 Cal. App. 641 · California Court of Appeal · May 29, 1914

Unless it can be said the facts and circumstances established were such that reasonable men could reach but one conclusion therefrom, the question as to whether or not defendants exercised the required degree of care in looking … Applying this rule to the evidence disclosed by the record, we are clearly of the opinion that the evidence fully justified the verdict reached by the jury.

Venzor v. Santa Barbara Elks Lodge

56 Cal. App. 3d 209 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 12, 1976

It is doubtful that plaintiff’s inebriation alone would be sufficient to qualify as a ‘position of danger.’ … Torts, § 714 at p. 3003, supra), his example does not appear to be one clearly illustrating that theory.

Cox v. Griffin

California Court of Appeal · Apr 17, 2019

Cox asserts, 12 "[T]he privilege under [s]ection 47(b) did not render the jury's verdict contrary to law because all of the elements of malicious prosecution were clearly present … Cox contends undisputed evidence establishes favorable termination of the criminal charges filed against her.