Case law

Arnold v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance

202 Cal. App. 4th 580 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 30, 2011

A defendant seeking summary judgment must thus establish that one or more essential elements of the plaintiff’s cause of action cannot be established. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. … These presumptions clearly qualify, in particular cases, the common law distinction between “employee” and “independent contractor.”

Pacific Indemnity Co. v. California State Automobile Ass'n

190 Cal. App. 2d 293 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 21, 1961

In establishment of its claim, appellant begins its argument by pointing out that where an employer pays damages as the result of an unauthorized negligent act of an employee, the employer has a right of action for reimbursement … It is to be noted that neither the American nor the Firemen’s Insurance case qualifies the rule therein recited upon the basis that the owner was a defendant.

People v. Rodriguez

58 Cal. App. 2d 415 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 28, 1943

Evidence as to statements of the accused tending to show his guilt was admissible to establish the truth of the facts stated. … The confessions which had been used in those cases were clearly shown to have been extorted from the respective defendants. The evidence here does not go that far.

Mubanda v. City of Santa Barbara CA2/6

California Court of Appeal · Jan 4, 2022

The trial court granted the motion, concluding the City had established as a matter of law that it was immune from suit under section 831.7 because (1) Kabogoza drowned while engaging in a hazardous recreational activity … This section “establishes that the Legislature’s aim was to withhold immunity if the public entity failed to warn or guard against a dangerous condition or hazardous activity that was not an inherent part of the activity

Jaramillo v. County of Orange

200 Cal. App. 4th 811 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 8, 2011

The three dissenters took the position that (1) Civil Code section 3513 (rights under law established for a “public reason” cannot be waived) in combination with (2) prior case law holding that POBRA was established for a … Third, and most importantly, applying the County of Riverside majority test, the waivers here would clearly undermine POBRA and not serve it.'

People v. Johnson

19 Cal. App. 4th 778 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 20, 1993

The second was a former inmate informant who had told, by his own account, many lies in the past, and had thus purportedly established a special expertise in lying. … When an eyewitness identification of the defendant is a key element of the prosecution’s case but is not substantially corroborated by evidence giving it independent reliability, and the defendant offers qualified expert

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

Fakhrian v. Google, Inc. CA2/7

California Court of Appeal · Apr 25, 2016

Fakhrian filed a first amended complaint alleging, “I do not have a claim about (CDA) 1996, This law clearly gives a blanket immunity to Internet Service Providers. … Google, Inc., supra, 422 F.Supp.2d at p. 501 [“there is no doubt that Google qualifies as an ‘interactive computer service’”]; Novak v. Overture Services, Inc.

City of Oakland v. Public Employees' Retirement System

115 Cal. Rptr. 2d 151 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 9, 2002

Code, § 20000 et seq.) establishes a retirement system for certain state and local government employees. … That is clearly the case here. Oakland Airport Servicemen were part of a separate ARFF unit or ‘fire department.’ ” We agree with the Board.

Shannon v. McKinley

62 Cal. App. 2d 169 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 4, 1944

Section 140 of the charter provided in part, “There is hereby established a civil service commission which is charged with the duty of providing qualified persons for appointment to the service of the city and county. … Such boards are vested with a high discretion and its abuse must appear very clearly before the courts will interfere.”

Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund v. Workers Comp. App. Bd.

California Court of Appeal · Jul 15, 2024

It concluded “[w]hat is before the court without assumptions does not establish credit and therefore no credit was awarded.” … These facts do not establish she received SSDI benefits primarily “for or on account of” her pre-existing disabilities.

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.

Loughan v. Harger-Haldeman

184 Cal. App. 2d 495 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 8, 1960

An independent contractor cannot with immunity be hired to perform an act which necessarily involves a trespass. In the case of Yee Chuck v. … It thus appears that the challenged instruction was clearly erroneous; that it was, furthermore, prejudicial will be demonstrated.

Mark L. v. Marci S.

94 Cal. App. 4th 430 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 10, 2001

A biological father may or may not qualify as a presumed father. … (c)), 5 this had no effect on a pending adoption unless he could also qualify as a presumed father.

Reid v. Dunn

201 Cal. App. 2d 612 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 20, 1962

We conclude, therefore, that the evidence clearly established that the corners were not ‘ ‘ existent. ’ ’ They were either “obliterated” or “lost.” Appellants cite Cragin v. … Russell is a qualified surveyor of long experience. The Record of Survey Map in evidence (defendants’ exhibit “A”), as well as Mr.

Hurwitz v. City of Orange

19 Cal. Rptr. 3d 213 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 24, 2004

(And clearly not the 60’s or later.) … It assumes that local public entity determinations of nuisance are absolutely immune from judicial scrutiny, such that even a transparently flimsy, transparently pretextual finding of nuisance would be enough to immunize

Woods v. American Film Institute

California Court of Appeal · Dec 17, 2021

Woods also argues that AFI does not qualify to use volunteers because it is not organized for a “humanitarian” purpose. … Woods does not dispute that AFI is qualified as a tax- exempt nonprofit.

Rubin v. Padilla

233 Cal. App. 4th 1128 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 29, 2015

We take judicial notice that the Secretary’s Web site lists all three minor-party plaintiffs as qualified political parties <https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/political-parties/qualified- political-party.htm > (as of January … The State of Washington was clearly entitled to raise the ante for ballot access, to simplify the general election ballot, and to avoid the possibility of unrestrained factionalism at the general election.”

Rental Housing Assn. of Northern Alameda County v. City of Oakland

171 Cal. App. 4th 741 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 26, 2009

In context, the language of section 6 does not clearly bar all multiple ground evictions. … Section 6.C(2) provides in part: “The following shall be considered rebuttably presumptive violations of this Ordinance by the landlord: [¶] . . . [¶] (c) Where the individual (a landlord or qualified relative) for whom the

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.”