Case law

Ashford v. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District CA6

California Court of Appeal · Sep 16, 2025

According to Ashford, Midpeninsula should not have selected Chaparral as the new concessionaire for the Bear Creek Stables because Chapparal’s submission did not meet the criteria established in the RFP in several respects … In its meetings of September 24, 2022, October 26, 2022 and August 24, 2022, the [b]oard of [d]irectors for [Midpeninsula] awarded a public contract for the operation of a ‘qualified horse stable [c]oncessionaire to provide

Gatton v. AP Green Services, Inc.

75 Cal. Rptr. 2d 523 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 1, 1998

It is not enough, as plaintiffs argue, that all asbestos defendants would have a shared interest and motive of establishing that Gatton was not exposed to asbestos at Pinole Point. … In resisting summary judgment, the plaintiff sought to take the case out of statutory immunity for purveyors of alcohol (Civ.Code, § 1714) by showing an undertaking by the restaurant.

People v. Hoover

187 Cal. App. 3d 1074 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 29, 1986

Andrew received immunity in exchange for a statement and trial testimony. Hoover’s jury trial was bifurcated into a guilt phase and a sanity phase. … The expert’s single assertion of unawareness of wrongfulness was qualified by the phrase “under those circumstances,” apparently referring to such conditioning.

Lucian v. All States Trucking Co.

116 Cal. App. 3d 972 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 27, 1981

As indicated above, each plan clearly stated that the bonus was based on profits, was not determined or payable until the end of a fixed period, and that an employee who voluntarily left his employment was not entitled to … Our rule is in accord with the prevailing view that where a definite bonus or profit-sharing plan has been *976 established and forms part of the employment contract, the employee is not entitled to share in the proceeds

Cranston v. Gianassi

214 Cal. App. 2d 113 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 15, 1963

The relationship is established only if the stepfather receives the stepchild into his family and treats it as a member thereof. … It clearly embodies more than furnishing material help to a close relative who is in need.

Souza v. Westlands Water District

38 Cal. Rptr. 3d 78 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 17, 2006

The trial was bifurcated, with the district presenting its governmental immunity defenses in the first phase. … Governmental immunity Because of the conclusions reached above, we need not discuss the district’s argument that the Souzas’ contract and invalid assessment claims should have been barred by governmental immunity.

Forrest v. Forrest

125 Cal. App. 2d 674 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 2, 1954

Before the appellate courts will interfere, it must be made clearly and affirmatively to appear upon the face of the entire record in the case that this discretion has been abused. (Baldwin v. Baldwin, supra; Lincoln v. … This rule may be qualified in unusual circumstances, but ordinarily issues of that type will not be ascertained on pendente lite proceedings. (Kowalsky v. Kowalsky, 145 Cal. 394 [ 78 P. 877 ].)

Johnson v. Stoneridge Creek Pleasanton CCRC

California Court of Appeal · Aug 19, 2025

Bank of America (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d 819, 869.) 9 qualified as “projected costs,” as the Department found. … To the extent Stoneridge Creek contends that section 1788(a)(22)(B) immunizes it from liability for retaliation, we reject the argument.

People v. Carter

192 Cal. App. 2d 648 · California Court of Appeal · May 29, 1961

Thereafter Coldiron again changed his story, and under immunity given him he testified for the prosecution as above indicated. … Sufficiency of the Evidente A mere recitation of the portion of the facts related clearly supports the finding of the jury that a conspiracy or an agreement did exist between defendant and Mrs.

Board of Directors v. Nye

8 Cal. App. 527 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 11, 1908

Granting to any corporation, association or individual any special or exclusive right, privilege or immunity.” (Art. IV, sec. 25, subd. 19.) 3. “. . . … Thus Congress established this duty as a policy of the federal government.

Judd v. Superior Court

60 Cal. App. 3d 38 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 13, 1976

this points and authorities as Exhibit “A” is a purported Xerox copy of an advertisement appearing in “Advertising Age” for March 29, 1976, and reading in part as follows: “Our job, as management consultants, is to find qualified … The Xerox copy of the purported advertisement is likewise clearly hearsay and offered without any proper foundation for its admission in evidence. (See Evid. Code, § 1400 et seq.)

Peter Kiewit Sons v. Industrial Accident Commission

234 Cal. App. 2d 831 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 8, 1965

The employer takes the employee as he finds him; thus compensation may be granted even though the employee’s physical condition subjects him to industrial disability to which a healthy person would be relatively immune. … Com., supra, 88 Cal.App.2d 410 , held that lay evidence was not adequate to establish impairment of vision by arc welding flashes. In Pacific Employers Ins. Co. v. Industrial Acc.

County of San Diego v. Bressi

184 Cal. App. 3d 112 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 7, 1986

The resolution of necessity conclusively establishes the extent of the taking. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1245.250, subd. (a).) If the judgment and resolution are in conflict the wording of the resolution controls. … “In the absence of a clear abuse of that discretion, the trial court’s determination that a witness is or is not qualified to testify to the value of land sought to be appropriated will not be disturbed on appeal.”

Garcia v. Superior Court

42 Cal. App. 4th 177 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 31, 1996

To the extent that Congress intended that awards under § 1983 should deter the deprivation of constitutional rights, there is no evidence that it meant to establish a deterrent more formidable than that inherent in the award … any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities

Los Angeles Equestrian Center, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles

17 Cal. App. 4th 432 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 22, 1993

Immunity will prevail where the governmental misrepresentation interfered with either a commercial or a financial interest. [Citation.] … The facts herein do not establish the City invaded or appropriated any property right of appellants.

People v. Dye

119 Cal. App. 262 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 17, 1931

that it was procured under duress and oppression, and by threats and promises of immunity, made by the arresting officers while defendant was held concealed in solitary confinement, and denied counsel, or the right to communicate … is also true that if threats and inducements are made to a prisoner, and within a few days thereafter he makes a confession, such acknowledgment of the commission of the crime may not be introduced in evidence unless it clearly

Estate of Reid

80 Cal. App. 3d 185 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 21, 1978

Brian, according to the Controller, did not otherwise qualify as either a Class A transferee or as a Class B transferee as defined in section 13308. … Throughout the 14-year period from April 1960 to June 1974, there is evidence, in addition to the assumption of mutual obligations and undertaking of responsibilities, to indicate clearly a true parent-child relationship

Hoogasian Flowers, Inc. v. State Board of Equalization

23 Cal. App. 4th 1264 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 28, 1994

Since statutes are “clothed with a presumption of constitutionality,” the tax “must be upheld unless it is ‘clearly, positively and unmistakably’ unconstitutional.” (Ibid.; see also People v. … “To hold otherwise clearly would create a wide loophole in Proposition 13 as feared by the dissent in Richmond . . . .

Iverson v. Atlas Pacific Engineering

143 Cal. App. 3d 219 · California Court of Appeal · May 24, 1983

It is clearly barred by Labor Code sections 3600 and 3601. [2] Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to the Labor Code. … to be one through whom the employer may be charged under Section 4553; (2) such act of such other employee shall be established to have been the proximate cause of the injury or death; and (3) such act is established to

In re Martinez

242 Cal. App. 4th 279 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 18, 2015

We hereby grant that motion and have considered this unredacted version as well. 4 enforcement agencies and had qualified to testify as an expert witness on prison gangs approximately … On the other hand, the warden must establish a “rational nexus” between the evidence and his conclusion that it establishes a direct link.