Case law

LiMandri v. Judkins

52 Cal. App. 4th 326 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 28, 1997

Clearly, the fraud allegations in LiMandri’s complaint do not fall within the purview of section 1572, as they establish no contractual or precontractual relationship between LiMandri and Judkins. 5 Moreover, the duty of … Della Penna did not specify what sort of conduct would qualify as “wrongful” apart from the interference itself.

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.

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.

Lasky, Haas, Cohler & Munter v. Superior Court

172 Cal. App. 3d 264 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 19, 1985

While the Riggs distinction of Prudence-Bonds is not immune to question, we need not definitively analyze the distinction offered because, as pointed out, our contrary result rests upon our construction of the California … Finally, to aid the respondent in its in camera determination of what materials qualify for protection under the views expressed herein (Fellows v.

Moore v. Williams

19 Cal. App. 600 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 5, 1912

July, 1912, for the sum of $100 for her services as such officer for and during the month of June, 1912; that the county of Sacramento is a county of the sixth class, as provided in said act; that defendant is the duly qualified … But the purposes and objects aimed at by the act were before the courts and were clearly stated.

Waggaman v. Northwestern Security Insurance

16 Cal. App. 3d 571 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 7, 1971

, or when the case has not been rated. ■ *577 Clearly, the statute requires the damages under uninsured motorist recovery be reduced by the present value of an award under the workmen’s compensation procedure when the uninsured … to be a party in interest, and, contrary to the opinion expressed by the arbitrator, it is doubtful that the uninsured motorist insurance carrier could qualify as a lien claimant.

California Teachers Ass'n v. Public Employment Relations Board

169 Cal. App. 4th 1076 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 5, 2009

San Antonio, we conclude its determination that the dissemination of the letter does not qualify as protected conduct was clearly erroneous and thus that its order dismissing the complaint must be reversed. *1093 In light … PERB’s determination that the terminations were caused by the July 26 letter, coupled with our conclusion the letter was clearly protected under PERB’s precedents, establishes that the teachers were terminated in violation

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.)

Rosenfield v. Vosper

86 Cal. App. 2d 687 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 9, 1948

These findings clearly support the judgment for plaintiff in the sum of $1,067.32. … Clearly at this point he did not feel that the trial judge was biased and prejudiced against him.

Morgan v. International Aviation Underwriters, Inc.

250 Cal. App. 2d 176 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 18, 1967

Secondarily, respondent contends that the instant judgment is immune from successful attack based upon the insufficiency of the findings because appellant failed to request more specific findings in the trial court. … The uncontradieted evidence establishes that at this meeting held at this crucial time respondent still was not denying its liability for property damage.

Brooks v. CarMax Auto Superstores

California Court of Appeal · Apr 21, 2016

She asserts she would not have purchased the Jeep had it not qualified as a "certified" vehicle, regardless of whether the Jeep was as mechanically sound as a Jeep that did qualify as a "certified" vehicle. … Kwikset noted standing requires that a party "(1) establish a loss or deprivation of money or property sufficient to qualify as injury in fact, i.e. economic injury, and (2) show that that economic injury was the result

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.

Johnson v. Fassett

132 Cal. App. 2d 871 · California Court of Appeal · May 16, 1955

Hund was to be their expert medical witness and their only medical witness, and that it was through him that they were going to establish their allegations of malpractice, the record does not substantiate these statements … An application for a continuance is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and its decision will not be reversed unless an abuse of discretion is clearly shown. (Slaughter v.

Garcia v. Superior Court

156 Cal. App. 3d 670 · California Court of Appeal · May 30, 1984

Solberg , however, is clearly distinguishable from the instant case. … Although the underlying issue in Solberg was judicial disqualification, Solberg did not involve the proceedings established in section 170, subdivision (e).

South San Francisco Unified School District v. Scopesi

187 Cal. App. 2d 45 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 2, 1960

“The long established rule in this state is that witnesses ‘cannot, upon the direct examination, be allowed to testify as to . . . sales of adjoining lands . . .’ ” (People v. LaMacchia, supra, at p. 744). … Thus, the opinions of the district’s experts as to use *52 and value were clearly admissible without reference to any specific sales for horticultural use.

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

Oliva v. Swoap

59 Cal. App. 3d 130 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 15, 1976

oral argument, plaintiffs took the position that the exception in subdivision (c) of section 11004 creates but a single contingency in which overpayments can be recovered; that the words “errors” and “changes” are each qualified … The grant adjustment procedure employed herein pursuant to regulations adopted by the Department is clearly authorized by statute. Accordingly, the trial court erred in granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment.

Franklin Mint Co. v. Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP

184 Cal. App. 4th 313 · California Court of Appeal · May 3, 2010

But a lawyer is not immune from liability for malicious prosecution simply because the general area of law at issue is complex and there is no case law with the same facts that establishes that the underlying claim was untenable … But the actual advertisements, which were attached to the complaint, clearly do not make the representation alleged, and no reasonable attorney could argue that the advertisements could be construed to even suggest that all

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