Case law

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.

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 .)

Poag v. Winston

195 Cal. App. 3d 1161 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 30, 1987

The essential element is an intent to appropriate the name as a signature; it need not be the full handwritten name to qualify. (Marks, supra, at p. 820 .) Hence, even initials may qualify. (See, e.g., Berdan v. … This petition clearly must be characterized as an offer of additional purported testamentary documents, an action long recognized as falling outside the purview of a forfeiture clause, in that it seeks to establish rather

Lopez v. Nissan North America, Inc.

201 Cal. App. 4th 572 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 5, 2011

“To forestall an action under the unfair competition law, another provision must actually ‘bar’ the action or clearly permit the conduct.” (Id. at p. 183.) Recently, in Alvarez v. … In deeming qualifying odometers “correct,” section 12500, subdivision (c) “clearly permit[s]” their design (Cel-Tech, supra, 20 Cal.4th at p. 183 ), and we “may not use the unfair competition law to condemn actions the Legislature

People v. JEFELO

63 Cal. App. 4th 1314 · California Court of Appeal · May 15, 1998

In the unpublished portion of this opinion we reverse and remand for a determination of whether appellant’s two 1983 convictions of firearm assault qualify as prior convictions within the meaning of the three strikes law … for hearing if there is a showing on the record of facts that establish a compelling interest against disclosure.

Simpson v. Kroger Corp.

219 Cal. App. 4th 1352 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 25, 2013

The Supreme Court said that while Congress clearly intended to allow states to establish their own identical laws, it said nothing about limiting the range of available remedies states might provide for violation of those … Based on an examination of the mailers, the Ninth Circuit determined that no reasonable person could believe they had won the sweepstakes in light of the qualifying language included in the mailer.

McKnight v. Faber

185 Cal. App. 3d 639 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 17, 1986

This rule, however, clearly has no application to a conveyance of an interest in property that is not exempt and can be reached by creditors. … Having determined that defendant failed to establish absolute immunity under section 47, subdivision 2, Civil Code, we need not address appellant’s contention that the shield of that statute does not in any event apply to

Area 51 Productions v. City of Alameda

California Court of Appeal · Feb 20, 2018

Section 425.16, subdivision (b)(1) does not provide a form of immunity, “insulat[ing] defendants from any liability for claims arising from the protected rights of petition or speech.” (Baral v. … If, in fact, there is merit to the plaintiff’s cause of action, the plaintiff can avoid dismissal simply by establishing a probability of prevailing.”); Flatley v.

Fabela v. Hargis

147 Cal. App. 2d 809 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 25, 1957

it, and that when he listens, he hears that which is clearly audible. … The first sentence stating that general human experience shows that a person looking in the direction of an object clearly visible sees it, must certainly mean to most people that the object is in such position as to be clearly

Dietl v. Heisler

188 Cal. App. 2d 358 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 23, 1961

The debtor appealed, claiming the evidence conclusively established an accord and satisfaction. … The only other possible error, occurring after appellants opened the case on the cross-complaint, involved respondent’s unsuccessful attempt to qualify an expert.

Wareham v. Wareham

195 Cal. App. 2d 64 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 21, 1961

Blood tests of the parties and Shelley Marie were taken by a qualified expert 2 pursuant to the provisions of section 1980.3, Code of Civil Procedure. … While the holding in that ease clearly sustains plaintiff’s position that the disputable presumption of legitimacy (Civ.

Dougherty v. Ellingson

97 Cal. App. 87 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 20, 1929

these circumstances, if you so find, it will be your duty in this case to render your verdict in favor of the plaintiff and against all of the defendants,” this appellant claims is erroneous (1) because of the omission of qualifying … Any doubt on the matter is removed by reading the next preceding instruction which stated that the instructions as to damages were inapplicable if the liability of the defendants were not established.

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

People v. Montoya

235 Cal. App. 2d 789 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 19, 1965

. *794 Montoya and his sister then attempted to establish an alibi by testimony which was not believed by the court. … Diaz, 105 Cal.App.2d 690, 700 [ 234 P.2d 300 ]) ; reliance by prosecution on testimony of a witness who was promised immunity in the event defendant should be bound over for trial (People v.

Mendez v. City of San Diego CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · Jul 19, 2022

It is well established that to prevail on design immunity as an affirmative defense, the public entity must establish three elements: “(1) a causal relationship between the plan or design and the accident; (2) discretionary … As Tansavatdi explained, “Nothing in Cameron . . . suggests that design immunity cannot shield a failure to warn that is itself caused by a qualifying design under section 830.6.

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,

People v. Hiller

California Court of Appeal · May 9, 2023

We acknowledge that in this case the trial court clearly considered future dangerousness, pointing out defendant’s long history of crimes and explaining that “prior conduct is usually an indicator of … Among the qualifying serious felonies is one in which the defendant personally uses a firearm. (§ 667, subd. (a)(4), 1192.7, subd. (c)(8).)

Watts v. CIVIL SERVICE BD. OF CITY OF OAKLAND

59 Cal. App. 4th 939 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 6, 1997

Additionally, Watts contends he took the state exam for his real estate license, which also qualifies as an unassembled, promotional examination. … He states he clearly had a vested interest in the latter position and it could only be terminated upon notice, with good cause shown. (See Strumsky v.

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.

G. E. Hetrick & Associates, Inc. v. Summit Construction & Maintenance Co.

11 Cal. App. 4th 318 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 30, 1992

“Responsible Managing Officer” The evidence establishes that a triable issue of fact exists as to whether Gary Hetrick was the responsible managing officer of Hetrick, Inc. to a degree sufficient to establish substantial … In any event, clearly triable issues of fact exist as to this issue. 3 The construction management services agreement is dated December 19, 1988, but is not executed.