Case law

CALIFORNIA HOSPITAL ASSN. v. Maxwell-Jolly

188 Cal. App. 4th 559 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 20, 2010

[it] will lie to correct abuses of discretion, and will lie to force a *571 particular action by the . . . officer, when the law clearly establishes the petitioner’s right to such action.” ’ ” (Miller Family Home, Inc. v. … Relying on the standards established in Orthopedic Hospital, the court held that section 30(A) clearly applied to the state’s decision to cut providers’ reimbursement rates. (Independent Living, at pp. 648-649.)

Addison v. Department of Motor Vehicles

69 Cal. App. 3d 486 · California Court of Appeal · May 4, 1977

A place of business of an automobile dismantler which qualified as an ‘established place of business’ before the enactment of amendments to this section at the 1970 Regular Session of the Legislature shall be deemed to be … It cannot be invoked where the grant of express powers clearly excludes the exercise of others, or where the claimed power is incompatible with, or outside the scope of, the express power.

People v. Douglas

187 Cal. App. 2d 802 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 29, 1960

As the People suggest, the record clearly shows defendants were attempting improperly to delay the proceedings by a last-minute dismissal of the public defender. … “The law is established in California that when a defendant is charged in an information or indictment with having suffered a previous conviction, if he denies at the time of his arraignment that he has suffered such previous

People v. Groves

63 Cal. App. 709 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 19, 1923

If the district attorney made such representations he clearly exceeded his authority in so far as binding his own office or the court was concerned. … It is contended that the court combined the eases of both defendants, in consequence of which a conviction of one would establish the guilt of the other.

Argonaut Mining Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission

21 Cal. App. 2d 492 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 23, 1937

Some men appear to be immune from the disease, but a large proportion of those who are engaged in such pursuits are susceptible to silicosis. … The law clearly distinguishes between a physical injury sustained as the result of an accident and injuries which develop from progressive occupational diseases like silicosis.

Sumrall v. City of Cypress

258 Cal. App. 2d 565 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 1, 1968

On two or three occasions thereafter, Kennedy contacted Plaintiff’s attorney to inquire as to plaintiff’s medical status and to request a medical report and the establishment of settlement discussions. … Co., 178 Cal.App.2d 455 [ 3 Cal.Rptr. 80 ], clearly sustains the conclusions of the trial court in the case at bench.

Scott v. Metabolite International, Inc.

9 Cal. Rptr. 3d 242 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 29, 2004

Therefore, Grobust does not qualify as a matter of public interest by examining either ‘the number of persons allegedly affected’ or ‘the seriousness of the conditions treated. . . .’ [Citation.]” … The Supreme Court has not yet acted on that petition. * * Reporter’s Note: The Supreme Court denied review on February 24, 2004. 3 In a strict liability case, a plaintiff can establish a product has a design defect by establishing

People v. Szymanski

135 Cal. Rptr. 2d 691 · California Court of Appeal · May 30, 2003

We agree with Szymanski that he was denied the right to have a trial before a qualified jury. … It is well established, “Denial of an appropriate and timely challenge for cause may result in an unqualified juror being forced on the defendant in violation of constitutional and statutory rights.

Marten v. Thies

99 Cal. App. 3d 161 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 29, 1979

In view of this history, the director’s belief that the wife might flee with the child was clearly reasonable. … The wife fails to state in what respect an attorney is better qualified to communicate with, and represent the interests of an infant regarding her adoptive placement than the agency established for that purpose, and designated

People v. Lucero

154 Cal. App. 3d 245 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 6, 1984

Defendant seeks to establish his eligibility for probation and asserts he should have been given an opportunity to reunite the family. … Count I alleges that defendant had sexual intercourse with the victim, clearly an act of “substantial sexual contact,” as defined in subdivision (b).

Knox v. Phoenix Leasing Inc.

29 Cal. App. 4th 1357 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 31, 1994

It would in plain effect reward ignorance and establish an incentive for ignoring the filing system. … Phoenix complied with statutory provisions intended to immunize secured creditors from such claims in all but the rarest of cases.

People v. Stewart

89 Cal. App. 3d 992 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 29, 1979

Appellant clearly understood and agreed to his attorney’s recommendation in entering the proper plea. … Those instructions included: “You are instructed that predictions of dangerous behavior, no matter who makes them, are incredibly inaccurate, and there is a growing consensus that psychiatrists are not uniquely qualified

People v. Mazoros

76 Cal. App. 3d 32 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 19, 1977

The record, however, clearly demonstrates that the evidence was neither clear *42 nor uncontradicted. No objective tests supported the medical testimony. 5 For example, Dr. … Tarantino created a “judicially declared immunity” where a psychiatrist initially appointed pursuant to Penal Code section 1367 et seq. is subsequently called to testify during the case in chief.

Danley v. Merced Irrigation District

66 Cal. App. 97 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 6, 1924

and on behalf of their successors in ownership of the land to which said Contract is attached not to contest any assessment hereafter levied by said District in accordance with law by reason of dues, rights, privileges or immunity … That such an agreement or proposal does not come within the terms and provisions of the powers granted by section 15 and that the compensation to be paid for a water right is not a part of the right itself is more clearly

Dagher v. Ford Motor Co.

238 Cal. App. 4th 905 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 17, 2015

III.B, post.) 5  In reply to the opposition, Ford argued that the language and history of the Act clearly apply to "retail" sales, not private sales. (Atkinson v. … As the moving defendant, Ford had the burden of showing that " 'one or more elements of the 'cause of action' in question 'cannot be established,' or that 'there is a complete defense' thereto."

J. I. Case Threshing Co. v. Copren Bros.

35 Cal. App. 70 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 22, 1917

“The fact that an impartial trial cannot be had must be clearly established. … This right should not be taken from them without the plaintiff clearly shows that its right to a fair and impartial trial cannot be had where the action is pending.

People v. Packard

131 Cal. App. 3d 622 · California Court of Appeal · May 11, 1982

Having initiated the scheme in 1976 does not immunize appellant from punishment for his conduct in 1977 and 1978 which violated the laws then in existence. (Sa muels v. McCurdy, supra, 267 U.S. 188 .) … Appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to establish that the loss was more than $100,000.

Kuck v. Raftery

117 Cal. App. 755 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 29, 1931

reservation of the power of withdrawal by the depositor during his lifetime is inconsistent with the existence of a trust, it would seem to make no difference in this case whether we follow the Massachusetts rule as so qualified … clearly the intention to create a trust and that the evidence relied upon to overcome their effect fails wholly to do so.

Diesel Electric Sales & Service, Inc. v. Marco Marine San Diego, Inc.

16 Cal. App. 4th 202 · California Court of Appeal · May 5, 1993

Based upon the evidence Diesel presented and viewed most favorably to it, we conclude the evidence does not clearly show Marco was in a different functional classification from Diesel. … By establishing a prima facie case of a section 17045 violation, Diesel had presented substantial evidence of antitrust injury.

People v. Kenneth J.

70 Cal. Rptr. 3d 352 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 10, 2008

Kenneth’s primary contention is that the juvenile court erred in failing to hold a hearing to determine if he qualified for the deferred entry of judgment (DEJ) procedure specified in Welfare and Institutions Code section … That is not sufficient to establish a reversible abuse of discretion. (People v.