Case law

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.

Alvarado Community Hospital v. Superior Court

173 Cal. App. 3d 476 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 18, 1985

Pegg’s new law firm did not receive a copy of the settlement draft from Alvarado until July 1984, and contend it was not until that time that they could definitely establish that Pegg’s signature had been forged on the check … As we know, that section although literally mandatory has been judicially qualified. The California Supreme Court has set “reality above artificiality.” (Christin v.

Boehm & Associates v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

133 Cal. Rptr. 2d 396 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 25, 2003

The NVICP offers a no-fault substitute for tort recovery against vaccine manufacturers who, if held liable in a civil case, clearly would qualify as ‘third parties.’ … Similar to the NVICP, workers’ compensation offers a no-fault substitute for tort liability of the employer who, if held liable in a civil action, clearly would qualify as a third party tortfeasor.

People v. Rhines

131 Cal. App. 3d 498 · California Court of Appeal · May 6, 1982

As to his relationship with his attorney the record establishes Miss Pope as a competent, qualified, experienced lawyer ready, willing and able to effectively represent defendant, and their disagreement to be one solely as … Defendant’s rather lengthy colloquy with the trial judge clearly reflects a maneuver undertaken for delay.

Stanislaus Audubon Society, Inc. v. County of Stanislaus

33 Cal. App. 4th 144 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 28, 1995

Appellant clearly met this burden. Much of the evidence of the potential growth-inducing impact of the proposed country club was generated by the County itself. … The record here clearly contains substantial evidence supporting a fair argument the proposed country club may induce housing development in the surrounding area.

Smith v. City of Los Angeles

66 Cal. App. 2d 562 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 31, 1944

“While it is true that the seeming absolute protection against the taking or damaging of private property for public use provided for in section 14 of article I of our Constitution may be qualified by the police power in … The principle of this case is sound but it is clearly distinguishable from the *586 case at bar.

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

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.”

Saint Francis Memorial Hospital v. City & County of San Francisco

137 Cal. App. 2d 321 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 29, 1955

No one could seriously contend that a hospital must show a deficit at the end of each year in order to qualify as not operating for profit. … of the “welfare exemption”; as clearly as, if not more clearly than, the articles of incorporation of the plaintiff did in Pacific Home v.

James v. State of Cal.

California Court of Appeal · Sep 24, 2013

we employ the categorical approach established in Taylor v. United States (1990) 495 U.S. 575, 602. … ―‗―It has long been established, both in tort and criminal law, that ‗the least touching‘ may constitute battery.

Austin v. Simpson

188 Cal. App. 4th 512 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 15, 2010

Substantial evidence supports the trial court’s conclusion that Dawn failed to establish Debra was Donald’s care custodian at the time of the transfers. … A ‘paid live-in caregiver’ clearly provides social services within the meaning of section 21350(a) and is, therefore, a care custodian.” (Odian, supra, 145 Cal.App.4th at p. 167 .)

Kinsell v. Bank of America

174 Cal. App. 2d 1 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 24, 1959

‘all the property then in the hands of the trustee . . . shall go to and vest in the heirs at law of said Alfred Easter, deceased,’ clearly indicates an intention That the interests of the heirs should vest at the time of … The gift to the class must therefore be distributed among those who qualify at the time specified. (3 Powell, The Law of Real Property, § 365, especially p. 165.)

Kaiser Found. Hosps. v. Superior Court of San Mateo Cty.

78 Cal. Rptr. 2d 543 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 28, 1998

As our Supreme Court has held, waiver is established by a showing that ‘the client has put the otherwise privileged communication directly at issue and that disclosure is essential for a fair adjudication of the action. … Under the circumstances presented in this case, we therefore conclude that neither the attorney-client privilege nor the work product doctrine has been waived unless it is established through other discovery that a significant

California Gillnetters Ass'n v. Department of Fish & Game

39 Cal. App. 4th 1145 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 30, 1995

First, because article I, section 25 expressly authorizes legislative regulation of fishing, the constitutional language creates only a qualified right to fish. … In evaluating any challenge to an initiative, we indulge all presumptions in favor of its validity and resolve all reasonable doubts in its favor, and we must uphold an initiative unless its unconstitutionality “clearly,

Temescal Water Co. v. Marvin

121 Cal. App. 512 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 10, 1932

Further effort was then made to qualify th§ witness to give his opinion as to the market value of the land in section 35. … The answer indicated that the witness did not comprehend the true meaning of market value and that, despite repeated efforts to qualify him to testify as to the market value of the land, he did not show himself to be so qualified

Union Oil Co. v. State Board of Equalization

224 Cal. App. 3d 665 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 10, 1990

The trial court, in its statement of decision, noted that it found the witnesses credible and qualified to testify. … The vast majority of the facts were established by stipulation.

People v. Johnson

California Court of Appeal · Jun 15, 2020

cause to search [defendant]’s entire vehicle even if the small bag 8 qualified as a closed container.” … The First District Court of Appeal upheld the search, noting the medical marijuana law at the time provided immunity from prosecution, but did not act as a shield from reasonable investigation. (People v.

Kong v. City of Hawaiian Gardens Redevelopment Agency

101 Cal. App. 4th 1317 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 13, 2002

The CRAL therefore is applicable if petitioner qualifies as a displaced person. We hold that he does. … Application of this rule led the court to conclude that plaintiff did not qualify as a displaced person.

Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board

121 Cal. Rptr. 2d 729 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 26, 2002

However, subdivision (a) of section 11501 qualifies this requirement by stating: “This chapter applies to any agency as determined by the statutes relating to that agency.” (Italics added.) … Furthermore, sections 11415.10 and 11415.20 clearly confirm that “[t]he governing procedure by which an agency conducts an adjudicative proceeding is determined by the statutes and regulations applicable to that proceeding

Ideal Packing Co. v. Brice

132 Cal. App. 2d 582 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 28, 1955

Appellants contend that the findings are inadequate in that they do not clearly show the basis of the court’s judgment; that there is no means of telling how the court derived the amount found to be due respondents; that … Kiener Co., supra, 423) and in so doing conformed with established practice.