Case law

P. v. Jaques CA4/2

California Court of Appeal · Jun 24, 2013

Only qualified patients, cardholders and designated primary caregivers of patients and cardholders can form and maintain a collective in order to receive limited immunity under section 11362.775. … First, defendant points to nothing that bars cash being given in exchange for marijuana under the MMPA.27 Next, the MMPA clearly bars the making of profit by any individual or collective (Qualified Patients Assn. v.

Department of Social Services v. Carol T.

87 Cal. App. 3d 864 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 27, 1978

To the extent that the Department’s qualified denial constituted a failure to meaningfully consider the appropriateness of such services, the decision whether to order them and delay the proceedings pending evaluation was … Any technical deficiencies in the report itself were clearly harmless. *876 V.

Tue Ngoc Hoang v. California State Board of Pharmacy

230 Cal. App. 4th 448 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 8, 2014

Under the arrangement, Orange created a set of labels containing its name, address, and phone number for each CalOptima- qualified patient for whom it filled a prescription. … Such boards are vested with a high discretion and its abuse must appear very clearly before the courts will interfere.’”’ [Citation.]

Maples v. Kern County Assessment Appeals Board

103 Cal. App. 4th 172 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 29, 2002

In addition, it argues that even if the purchase price established the prima facie value of the property, the evidence clearly rebutted the section 110(b) presumption. … that, under industry definitions discussed above, fail to qualify as proved reserves.

People v. Arias

California Court of Appeal · May 10, 2024

After the trial court ruled that a prima facie case of discrimination was established, the prosecutor gave three reasons for the strike. … “[G]iven that implicit biases generally influence decisionmaking, there is no reason to presume that citizens become immune to the effects of these biases when they serve in the 19

Rosenman v. Christensen, Miller, Fink, Jacobs, Glaser, Weil & Shapiro

110 Cal. Rptr. 2d 903 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 21, 2001

A FEHA Plaintiff Who Survives a Motion for Summary Judgment or Nonsuit Is Not Automatically Immune from an Award of Attorney Fees. … prevailing defendant in Gonzales, Gonzales is distinguishable, since appellant clearly establish a prima facie case against respondent.

Mireskandari v. Gallagher

California Court of Appeal · Dec 30, 2020

He qualified as a solicitor in 2000, and by 2006 he was the managing partner of a London firm with mostly “black, minority, or ethnic origin” (BME) solicitors and staff. … To the contrary, in the complaint, Mireskandari clearly sets forth that the $500 million in damages he allegedly suffered resulted from a communication: “As a result of Dr.

Uber Technologies, Inc. v. Google LLC

California Court of Appeal · Oct 25, 2018

The Supreme Court acknowledged that discovery disputes between parties to an arbitration agreement are “ ‘generally immune from judicial review.’ ” (Id. at p. 534.) … The privilege is also to be strictly construed “where the relationship is not clearly established.” (People v.

Free v. Republic Insurance

8 Cal. App. 4th 1726 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 28, 1992

Because this appeal arises from a judgment entered after the sustaining of a demurrer, we must, under established principles, assume the truth of all properly pleaded material allegations of appellant’s second amended complaint … Clearly defendants were not required under the general duty of care they owed plaintiff to advise him regarding the sufficiency of his liability limits or the replacement value of his residence. (Jones v.

In Re the Marriage of Regnery

214 Cal. App. 3d 1367 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 19, 1989

Therefore they consider me over-qualified for many jobs.” Suffice to say there is no evidentiary support in this record for this conclusion. … Viewed in light of the entire background which clearly establishes Frank deliberately refused to pay child and spousal support when well able to do so, his voluntarily leaving employment to which he objected merely because

Jane Does v. Salesforce.com CA1/2

California Court of Appeal · Dec 30, 2021

To claim immunity under section 230, a defendant must establish that “ ‘(1) the defendant [is] a provider or user of an interactive computer service; (2) the cause of action treat[s] the defendant as a publisher or speaker … is immune from their claims under section 230.

Musgrove v. Silver

California Court of Appeal · Sep 13, 2022

To prevail on such a motion, the moving party—here, Silver—must show that the plaintiffs “ha[ve] not established, and reasonably cannot be expected to establish, one or more elements of the cause of action in question.” … This is insufficient, as a matter of law, to establish liability.

Van Horn v. Industrial Accident Commission

219 Cal. App. 2d 457 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 21, 1963

The funds contributed by the booster club were distributed by the college to students who qualified. … The football coach was not consulted in passing on the applications. ” The record clearly contradicts these findings.

Schwartz v. Smookler

202 Cal. App. 2d 76 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 2, 1962

. *79 Allen, on or about March 29, was appointed receiver of the partnership assets, had duly qualified as such, and entered upon his duties. … The rule is firmly established that the “granting or denying [of] a motion to vacate a default rests in the sound discretion of the trial court, and that the order will not be disturbed unless an abuse of discretion clearly

Cranston v. Patell

221 Cal. App. 2d 376 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 21, 1963

They established domicile in California in 1940, and R. J. … Had it been the legislative intent to classify the property defined in Probate Code, section 201.5, as separate property for the purposes of taxation, there clearly would have been no need whatever to enact a separate section

Stewart Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Oakland

248 Cal. App. 4th 410 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 23, 2016

As did the trial court, we conclude that none of this evidence establishes a sufficient threat to the public welfare. … As discussed above, Davidson clearly distinguished between more pedestrian public-welfare concerns that justify normal regulations and the threats to the public safety or health required to justify the impairment of vested

People v. Duran

50 Cal. App. 4th 103 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 21, 1996

Code of Civil Procedure section 237, as enacted and relevant, stated: “(a) The names of qualified jurors drawn from the qualified juror list for the superior court shall be made available to the public upon request unless … The court regarded much of the language in Simms as dicta since the defendant therein “clearly established good cause for the name and telephone number of a single juror.” (Id. at p. 716, fn. 7.)

People v. Allen

165 Cal. App. 3d 616 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 13, 1985

The evidence, however, clearly established that both defendants—granted that they were the perpetrators—were participants in a murder in which a principal was armed with a firearm. (Pen. Code, § 12022, subd. (a).) … “This Court’s decisions in the sentencing area clearly establish that a sentence does not have the qualities of constitutional finality that attend an acquittal.” (United States v.

People v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County

60 Cal. App. 4th 202 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 19, 1997

They seek a trial to establish that by reason of a mental disease, defect or disorder, namely, antisocial personality disorder, Blakely represents a substantial danger of physical harm to others. (§ 1026.5.) … [Citations.] [*]Q Second, if Foucha can no longer be held as an insanity acquittee in a mental hospital, he is entitled to constitutionally adequate procedures to establish the grounds for his confinement. ...

Rodriguez v. FCA US, LLC

California Court of Appeal · Apr 7, 2022

defense summary judgment, we apply the traditional three-step analysis used by the trial court, that is, we (1) identify the pleaded issues, (2) determine if the defense has negated an element of the plaintiff’s case or established … We think if the Legislature intended to expand the definition of “new motor vehicle” to include a potentially vast category of used cars it would have done so more clearly and explicitly than tucking it into a reference