Case law

In Re Kyle F.

5 Cal. Rptr. 3d 190 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 3, 2003

voluntarily engages in sexual intercourse is not necessarily a victim of sexual abuse. ( Ibid. ) The trial court determined that an unwed father who could have been charged with misdemeanor unlawful sexual intercourse could never qualify … Accordingly, Adoption of Kelsey S. does not preclude appellant from establishing a constitutional right to block the adoption of his child.

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.

Mock v. Michigan Millers Mutual Insurance

4 Cal. App. 4th 306 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 4, 1992

Thus, plaintiffs were clearly underinsured. … Inferences can reasonably be drawn from this evidence which clearly support the basic tort liability for “bad faith.” But again, is this sufficient to establish despicable conduct?

Siskiyou Hospital v. County of Siskiyou

California Court of Appeal · Feb 25, 2025

And Fairchild fails to offer cogent legal analysis clearly explaining how its proposed amendments would change the legal effect of the operative complaint. … We find Fairchild’s showing inadequate to establish reversible error.

Berger v. California Insurance Guarantee Ass'n

27 Cal. Rptr. 3d 583 · California Court of Appeal · May 23, 2005

[known as the Guarantee Act]) to establish a fund from which insureds could obtain financial and legal assistance in the event their insurers become insolvent, i.e. … CIGA also has been held immune from tort liability for its own conduct in fulfilling its duties to pay “covered claims.” ( Isaacson, supra, 44 Cal.3d at pp. 783-789 [CIGA immune from liability for unfair practices under Ins

People v. Fowzer

127 Cal. App. 2d 742 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 5, 1954

In the case of the conduct of the business and affairs of an establishment, it is presumed that the regular course of business of such establishment is followed (Code Civ. … It was established that the warrant here in question was deposited into the account of appellant’s present wife.

Chelhar v. Acme Garage

18 Cal. App. Supp. 2d 775 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 18, 1936

Clearly she has none, and she does not acquire any by the celerity of her movements in seizing and selling property under it. … “It needs no argument to establish that an instrument declared by law to be absolutely void as against existing creditors cannot legally be made the basis of a valid sale as against them.

New v. Kroeger

167 Cal. App. 4th 800 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 21, 2008

to all qualified electors and only with consents of the Bishop and the Standing Committee. . . . … is ‘ “clearly ecclesiastical” ’ and that therefore the ecclesiastical authorities’ determination of the issue is ‘binding and conclusive on the trial court.’

Da Vinci Group v. San Francisco Residential Rent Stabilization & Arbitration Board

5 Cal. App. 4th 24 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 2, 1992

Fair Employment & Housing Com. (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1379, 1388 [ 241 Cal.Rptr. 67 , 743 P.2d 1323 ]) and “will not be overturned unless clearly erroneous” (DiGiorgio Fruit Corp. v. … The board argues Da Vinci’s property does not qualify for exemption under its interpretation of Ordinance section 37.2, subdivision (p)(6).

Mireskandari v. Gallagher

California Court of Appeal · Jan 21, 2021

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.

Robins v. County of Los Angeles

248 Cal. App. 2d 1 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 21, 1966

These are stable businesses with permanent locations situated within a clearly definable local jurisdiction and reasonably subjected to its control. … ordinance is unconstitutional because it might be construed as a prior restraint or denial of freedom of expression ; nor is the subject matter which the County thus attempts to regulate privileged by any other regulatory immunity

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.

Tournai v. CSAA Insurance Exchange

California Court of Appeal · Jan 11, 2024

However, regardless of what caused their failure to reach an agreement over the $30,451.98, defendant and plaintiff clearly did not reach an agreement as to that amount. … In the absence of any exception (which plaintiff has failed to establish, as concluded above), and regardless of whether plaintiff filed an action asserting bad faith claims, the trial court was required under Code of Civil

Dina v. PEOPLE EX REL. DEPT. OF TRANSP.

60 Cal. Rptr. 3d 559 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 5, 2007

The Department further asserted that governmental immunity barred the nuisance claim and that Government Code section 815 barred liability for a common law negligence claim. … On the merits of appellant's inverse condemnation claim, the trial court ruled that "plaintiffs have clearly failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that their properties suffered from `peculiar and substantial

Cellular Plus, Inc. v. Superior Court

14 Cal. App. 4th 1224 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 25, 1993

Nor does it immunize the outlawed acts because they are done by any of these. [Citations.] … The exact parameters of “antitrust injury” under section 16750 have not yet been established through either court decisions or legislation.

Tournai v. CSAA Insurance Exchange

California Court of Appeal · Jan 11, 2024

However, regardless of what caused their failure to reach an agreement over the $30,451.98, defendant and plaintiff clearly did not reach an agreement as to that amount. … In the absence of any exception (which plaintiff has failed to establish, as concluded above), and regardless of whether plaintiff filed an action asserting bad faith claims, the trial court was required under Code of Civil

Solari v. Oneto

166 Cal. App. 2d 145 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 15, 1958

Following the death of Andrea Daniele Oneto, appellant Giacomo Oneto qualified as administrator of Andrea’s estate. … referred to and defined as ‘inventory value’ in said ‘Articles of Copartnership.’ ” We believe that the fact that the agreement specifically mentioned “arbitration as prescribed in the Code of Civil Procedure” indicates clearly

Medallion Film LLC v. Loeb & Loeb LLP

California Court of Appeal · Mar 28, 2024

Loeb & Loeb argued plaintiffs could not establish a probability of success on their claims. … Plaintiffs also argued they had demonstrated justifiable reliance on Given’s representations, and the agent’s immunity rule did not apply. III.

Lund v. Cal. Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · Sep 13, 2023

They also argued Garcia was entitled to qualified immunity from prosecution of the federal claims (third, fourth and fifth causes of action), and statutory immunity under Government Code sections 820.4, 820.2 and 845.8 as … He further contended his state law claims were timely, CDCR was not immune from the state law claims, and Garcia was not entitled to qualified immunity or immunity under Government Code sections 820.4 and 820.2.

In Re the Marriage of Baker

204 Cal. App. 3d 206 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 30, 1988

It is well established, however, that section 1144 does not preempt California community property law in general, nor prohibit state courts in dissolution *212 actions from ordering pension plans 2 to pay part of a participant … In furtherance of congressional intent to protect the rights of separated and divorced spouses’ interest in such plans, it is proper for states to establish the procedure by which the interests of the spouses and former spouses