Case law

Regents of the University of California v. Aubry

42 Cal. App. 4th 579 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 6, 1996

“The courts have also recognized the broad powers conferred upon the regents as well as the university’s general immunity from legislative regulation. … As we have seen, article IX, section 9, establishing the independence of the university also curtails legislative power.

SBAM PARTNERS, LLC v. Cheng Miin Wang

164 Cal. App. 4th 903 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 9, 2008

If the exempt proceeds are used to purchase a dwelling within that six-month period, such dwelling may also qualify for a homestead exemption, even if a judgment lien has already been recorded. … It should not be invoked for the purpose of establishing a new application and interpretation of a statute, contrary to its true meaning and in the face of a long-established understanding and usage based on its true meaning

Liton General Engineering Contractor, Inc. v. United Pacific Insurance

16 Cal. App. 4th 577 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 11, 1993

The surety’s liability on the bond for subcontractor’s arbitration fees and costs was not established by the arbitration award or its court confirmation. … The surety was immune *610 from payment of subcontractor’s arbitration fees under the present statutory scheme. The applicable law wholly precludes the majority’s result. I would reverse the judgment.

Riverside County Transportation Com. v. Southern Cal. Gas Co.

California Court of Appeal · Sep 16, 2020

“‘PUC jurisdiction over a transit district must be clearly provided by statute” (id. at p. 365), but it found no such statute. (Id. at pp. 364- 365.) … Sovereign Immunity. Amici contend that the Commission, as an arm of the state, has sovereign immunity to the Franchises.

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.

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.

People v. Jackson

152 Cal. App. 2d 397 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 11, 1957

This was held to clearly justify an inference that Fraser was placing a bet on the race in question and that defendant was accepting such bet. … It may be directed to eliciting any matter which may tend to overcome or qualify the effect of the testimony given by defendant on his direct examination.

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.”

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.

Pettye v. City and County of San Francisco

12 Cal. Rptr. 3d 798 · California Court of Appeal · May 25, 2004

So long as a county establishes a G.A. … Moreover, the intent to exclusively delegate must be clearly shown. (Id. at p. 780.)

Estate of Benson

62 Cal. App. 2d 866 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 10, 1944

The original *868 will was established by production of a carbon copy thereof, as a lost or destroyed will, under the provisions of section 350 of the Probate Code. … Its function is merely to add to, supplement, qualify, modify or alter a former will in some stated respects.

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

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.

McClain v. City of South Pasadena

155 Cal. App. 2d 423 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 22, 1957

Every intendment is to be indulged by the courts in favor of the validity of its exercise and unless the measure is clearly oppressive it will be deemed to be within the purview of that power. … Gilbert, 137 N.Y.S.2d 389 , the village of Larchmont established a parking'lot exclusively for the inhabitants of the municipality.

Conway v. San Diego City Employees' Retirement System CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · Nov 28, 2022

she was immune, SDCERS was likewise immune under section 815.2, subdivision (b). … “Courts have delineated what is necessary to establish a mandatory duty.

Swaner v. City of Santa Monica

150 Cal. App. 3d 789 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 11, 1984

that if upon a consideration of all the facts stated it appears that the plaintiff is entitled to any relief at the hands of the court against the defendants, the complaint will be held good, although the facts may not be clearly … In response to this argument, our Supreme Court stated: “As we shall explain, [the] authorities clearly demonstrate that when, as in this case, the state has actual or constructive notice of a ‘dangerous condition’ on a public

Azevedo v. Industrial Accident Commission

243 Cal. App. 2d 370 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 7, 1966

Considering the portion of the Conway opinion which deems proceedings before the commission to be unavailable to employees assaulted by an employer as ‘‘clearly dictum,” the District Court of Appeal, Second District, in Carter … Regarding the rest of the quoted statement, the provisions of the workmen’s compensation laws are not entirely a ‘‘shield” to the employer: they are a sword to the injured employee— *374 immunizing him from most of the defenses

BP Alaska Exploration, Inc. v. Superior Court

199 Cal. App. 3d 1240 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 29, 1988

The federal provision leaves room for argument that the immunity conferred on “hard-core” work product is not absolute, and federal cases so hold. See Upjohn Co. v. … In other words, evidence from which reasonable inferences can be drawn to establish the fact asserted, i.e., the fraud.

Elsey v. Domecq

114 Cal. App. 42 · California Court of Appeal · May 7, 1931

The jury were elsewhere clearly instructed that they were the exclusive judges of the weight and sufficiency of the evidence. … There being no evidence of any remote negligence on the part of plaintiff, the omission of the proper qualifying expression could not have been prejudicial. ’ ’ Plaintiff’s instruction number twenty-two is challenged because

Valero v. Board of Retirement of Tulare County Employees' Retirement Ass'n

205 Cal. App. 4th 960 · California Court of Appeal · May 1, 2012

On February 6, 2009, the hearing officer concluded that Valero failed to establish that his permanent psychiatric incapacitation was service connected. … Greils was, however, clearly skeptical of Valero’s self-report. So was the trial court. This is not a case where undisputed facts lead to only one conclusion.