Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
1.59s
92 Cal. App. 3d 787 · California Court of Appeal · May 8, 1979
A Derrick Smith called by the defense was given immunity by the prosecution and testified that he neither knew appellant nor owned, or ever claimed to own, a Volkswagen. … Clearly, the assailant intended no good to his victim but, arguably, he intended to commit injury but not great bodily injury.
Cited 13 timesPublishedMcBail & Co. v. Solano County Local Agency Formation Commission
62 Cal. App. 4th 1223 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 6, 1998
Although administrative actions enjoy a presumption of regularity, this presumption does not immunize agency action from effective judicial review.” … Requiring an applicant to show how it will enhance a neighboring property is clearly beyond the scope of the Act.
Cited 15 timesPublishedCreighton v. City of Santa Monica
160 Cal. App. 3d 1011 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 12, 1984
If a vacancy shall occur on the Board, the Board shall within thirty (30) days appoint a qualified person to fill such a vacancy until the following municipal election when a qualified person shall be elected to serve for … (b) Establishment of Base Rent Ceiling.
Cited 14 timesPublishedEckert v. BAY AREA CELLULAR TELEPHONE CO.
102 Cal. Rptr. 2d 880 · California Court of Appeal · May 16, 2001
In sustaining defendants' demurrer to the complaint, the trial court ruled the utilities were immune from Cartwright Act liability because of the PUC's exclusive jurisdiction over utility ratemaking. … "However," the court of appeal wrote, plaintiffs "disclaim any challenge to the PUC's established rates.
Cited 0 timesPublishedSubsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund v. Workers' Comp. etc.
California Court of Appeal · Aug 13, 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.
Cited 0 timesPublished122 Cal. App. 4th 893 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 27, 2004
It clearly includes a device “by which any person or property may be . . . drawn upon a highway . . . .” (Veh. Code, § 670.) … In conclusion, because the language of Vehicle Code section 10851 clearly proscribes the unlawful taking of a “vehicle,” and because a trailer qualifies as a “vehicle” under Vehicle Code section 670, defendant was *904 properly
Cited 81 timesPublished206 Cal. App. 3d 459 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 6, 1988
Clearly the child was disturbed or irritated by defendant’s actions. She feared for her safety, and her fear was clearly apparent to the responding officer, and to Ms. Camargo. … Whether he was truthful in trying to qualify his interest, by claiming a belief the girl was older, was a credibility question for the trier of fact.
Cited 27 timesPublished103 Cal. App. 3d 605 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 21, 1980
Knudsen’s Dual Capacity Requires Further Specification of Facts The documentary evidence filed by Knudsen in support of its motion clearly demonstrates that it occupies a dual capacity in respect of Todds Food Company, assuming … to his capacity as employer, a second capacity that confers on him obligations independent of those imposed on him as employer.’ *613 “Characterizing a defendant as an ‘employer’ and therefore automatically cloaked with immunity
Cited 25 timesPublished9 Cal. App. 2d 223 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 20, 1935
He also contended that the ordinance does not license nor provide for any specific type of inspection and that it is clearly and avowedly a revenue measure. … Under the old charter the qualifying clause read: “ . . . except such as require permits from the Board of Police Commissioners as provided in the Charter.” (Subd. 15, sec. 1, chap. 2, art. II.)
Cited 0 timesPublishedAlexander v. State Ex Rel. Department of Transportation
159 Cal. App. 3d 890 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 30, 1984
To the contrary, these recent cases, taken together, clearly establish the rule that the term “use(d) with due care,” contained in Government Code section 830, subdivision (a), defining “dangerous condition,” does not as … successfully established the existence of a dangerous condition.
Cited 8 timesPublishedCalifornia Court of Appeal · Jun 10, 2013
, it has been recognized only when the defense has made a showing that a defense witness should be afforded immunity in order to provide clearly exculpatory testimony.‖ (People v. … Cir. 1980) 615 F.2d 964 (Smith)]—and highlighted two ‗ ―clearly limited‖ ‘ circumstances (both articulated in Smith) in which judicially conferred use immunity might be constitutionally necessary.
Cited 0 timesUnpublished65 Cal. App. 4th 923 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 27, 1998
If the court based Howard’s first year’s income on a $40,000 entry level position, as its statement of decision clearly indicates, it is inconceivable that such an entry level salary would rise by 100 percent after only one … Presumably, Howard would have had more than a year in which to establish his law practice.
Cited 55 timesPublishedKnopf v. Producers Guild of America, Inc.
40 Cal. App. 3d 233 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 27, 1974
of a Pension Plan; and 3) the establishment of a Health and Welfare Plan.” … Under California law the relationship between the “employee-producers” and the production companies is clearly that of employee and employer.
Cited 4 timesPublished170 Cal. App. 4th 535 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 15, 2009
California Department of Justice Senior Criminalist Matthew Kirsten, who qualified as an expert in manufacturing hashish, testified about all of the items that were found in appellant’s truck and how they contribute to the … even though that same act would be insufficient if the intent is not as clearly shown.
Cited 9 timesPublishedHorsford v. Board of Trustees of California State University
33 Cal. Rptr. 3d 644 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 31, 2005
Next, taken together, the actions taken against each plaintiff clearly were substantial and detrimental. … The plaintiff presented no evidence that a younger, less qualified person had taken her job during an overall reduction in force. (Id. at p. 1733.)
Cited 282 timesPublishedO'Meara v. Palomar-Pomerado Health System
23 Cal. Rptr. 3d 406 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 27, 2005
Palomar's Executive Committee is a legally mandated hospital peer review organization established under Palomar's medical staff bylaws. (See Arnett v. … immunity for actions taken by members of a hospital peer review committee.
Cited 3 timesPublished23 Cal. App. 2d 57 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 4, 1937
It authorizes the council to “establish” the board, and to fill it by appointment. … . *66 Where the council assume to establish the board under the law and to appoint its members, there is no good reason why an irregularity or illegality in the act of establishing the office any more than an irregularity
Cited 3 timesPublished85 Cal. App. 2d 182 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 27, 1948
The evidence clearly establishes the participation of both defendants in procuring the checks from the prosecutrix. Daniels’ participation is obvious. … Inspector King clearly qualified as an expert under such rule.
Cited 18 timesPublishedHobby Industrial Ass'n of America, Inc. v. Younger
101 Cal. App. 3d 358 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 24, 1980
Professions Code section 12602 to wholesale and retail distributors of nonfunctional slack filled packages, without regard to the limitations set forth in subdivision (b) of section 12602, whereas Hobby contended that the section clearly … We therefore hold that wholesalers or retailers are exempt from the prohibition of section 12606 in terms of the exclusion in section 12602, subdivision (b), and are also immune from actions under section 17200 et seq. of
Cited 16 timesPublishedLos Angeles County Department of Children's Services v. Ronald B.
18 Cal. App. 4th 719 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 1, 1993
‘The only finding I made today was that she was not able to qualify as a witness and, therefore, testify at all today. … Further, Kailee’s remarks to her aunt and pediatrician about her vaginal soreness were admissible under the physical sensation exception to the hearsay rule to establish her “present physical condition and her view of its
Cited 1 timesPublished
Ask Donna