Case law

Schmidt v. Bank of America, N.A.

223 Cal. App. 4th 1489 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 21, 2014

The Schmidts further contend that Bank of America has not established its immunity as an individual condominium owner under former section 1365.9.2 Bank of America and the Aragon HOA counter that no triable issues of material … The phrase "for public road purposes" is qualified both by the right granted ("ingress and egress") and by its application to the Schmidt parcel ("over, along and across").

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.)

Perrotti v. Sampson

163 Cal. App. 2d 280 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 2, 1958

The court instructed the jury clearly on the meaning and effect of the burden of proof (BAJI No. 21), and that the burden of proving defendants’ negligence and that such negligence was a proximate cause of the accident rested … The qualifying language last quoted was offered as a part of defendants’ instruction on the burden of proof of contributory negligence but was unfortunately stricken from the instruction as given by the court.

Re-Open Rambla, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors

39 Cal. App. 4th 1499 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 9, 1995

The court framed the issue on appeal as “whether the City [of Cupertino] lost its immunity under section 1806 by annexing the subject roadways.” (Rink v. City of Cupertino, supra, 216 Cal.App.3d at p. 1367 .) … Instead, it reads into section 989 qualifying language conditioning a city’s automatic acquisition of title on lack of a county’s objection.

Wakefield v. Wakefield

258 Cal. App. 2d 274 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 25, 1968

In attacking the decree below, Raymond is clearly acting in his own individual interest as an adversely affected beneficiary of the will. … The proration included in the decree was only illustrative except to the extent it held respondents and the property passing to them under the will immune from liability for any of the tax.

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).

Bagg v. Wickizer

9 Cal. App. 2d 753 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 4, 1935

We have well established and clearly defined rules of law to assist us in the construction of the phrase in question. … He is therefore qualified to hold the office of justice of the peace of San Bernardino township.

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.

Board of Medical Quality Assurance v. Superior Court

114 Cal. App. 3d 272 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 31, 1980

significant that the stay order provisions of section 1094.5 are operative only after the administrative agency has conducted a full due process hearing and made an administrative determination that the physician is no longer qualified … of section 1094.5 constitutes “an unconstitutional grant of judicial power to an administrative agency” and an unconstitutional “invasion of the judiciary’s power,” thus violating the separation of powers doctrine. *279 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."

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

San Francisco Apartment Ass'n v. City & County of San Francisco

3 Cal. App. 5th 463 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 19, 2016

The well-established principles of preemption are as follows. A. The Principles of Preemption. … Davenport (1985) 41 Cal.3d 247, 266 [“it should not be presumed that the legislative body intends to overthrow long-established principles of law unless such intention is made clearly to appear either by express declaration

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.

In re Morse

California Court of Appeal · Jan 5, 2021

Sims also discussed the qualifying crime. Dr. … His lack of remorse was clearly evident in the current interview.” Dr.

Pullman v. Lynch CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · Mar 14, 2014

The court also found that "[Pullman's] allegations trigger quasi-judicial immunity in favor of Defendant Lynch." … The letter sent by Lynch qualified as a written statement or writing made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by an official proceeding authorized by law because she was acting on behalf of the DPR

McClung v. Johnson

106 Cal. App. 264 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 6, 1930

This court is presided over by a police judge, and also has a duly appointed, qualified and acting clerk. … The intention is, in our judgment, clearly manifested by the requirements of the office that fees collected by the justice should be paid to the city treasury.”

STATE OF CALIF., STATE PUB. WORKS BD. v. Turner

90 Cal. App. 3d 33 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 2, 1979

The amount of the offer was clearly determined by the state with good faith, care and accuracy. … It was not disputed by the property owners the state used a very well qualified appraiser who used proper comparables to determine the value of this property.

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. Foust

267 Cal. App. 2d 222 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 7, 1968

Foust and Hickey engaged in several arguments and they were asked to leave the establishment by Ruth Kenner, the manager. … “Lawyers'in this State have to go to law school and then they have to pass a very stringent bar examination, and when they pass that bar examination they are deemed qualified to practice before this Court.

People v. White

3 Cal. App. 5th 433 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 19, 2016

If sexual 10 battery were a qualifying offense, Dr. … Our Supreme Court “has recognized ‘the strong presumption that legislative enactments “must be upheld unless their unconstitutionality clearly, positively, and unmistakably appears. [Citations.]