Case law

Golden & Co. v. Justice's Court

23 Cal. App. 778 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 12, 1914

This construction of said section is arrived at by a grammatical analysis of the phraseology thereof, whereby, considering the construction concretely, it *792 is sought to be established that ihe legislature intended the … It would, in brief, countenance a gross evasion of the evident spirit and intent of the statute, for liquor dealers engaged in business outside the borders of no-license territory could, with impunity, and immunity from punishment

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.

RICHARD N. v. Superior Court

116 Cal. App. 3d 579 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 6, 1981

Code, § 1382), it has been held prearraignment delays, even when in violation of statute, do not necessarily result in immunity from prosecution. The leading case is People v. … Clearly the time-limiting statute here in question, former section 655, is such a statute. The charges here are not serious — a relevant factor.

Aaron v. City of Los Angeles

40 Cal. App. 3d 471 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 3, 1974

The trial court dismissed the other counts, rejecting the nuisance theory on grounds of governmental immunity. … [fl] Only a compelling federal interest, e.g., where the state-created liability would clearly frustrate federal purposes, justifies our implying an intent on the part of Congress to nullify common-law rights normally in

Goldberger v. Crocker Citizens National Bank

7 Cal. App. 3d 8 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 28, 1970

It would unreasonably advance form over substance to hold that such a mistaken belief, if it existed, would defeat the testator’s clearly, and otherwise validly, expressed testamentary intent. … This conclusion is consistent with the long-established rule that the presence of the signatures of witnesses will not invalidate an otherwise effective holographic will, ‘even though the testator believed.,t]ie- attestation

Redfearn v. Trader Joe's Company

California Court of Appeal · Mar 16, 2018

Litton Saudi Arabia Ltd. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 503] clearly should apply to bar a tort claim against a party to a prospective relationship”].) 5  DISCUSSION … The requirement that plaintiff plead and prove an independently wrongful act to establish liability for interference with certain at-will employment agreements, recognized in Reeves, does not apply in the commercial brokerage

Williams v. San Francisco Board of Permit Appeals

88 Cal. Rptr. 2d 565 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 8, 1999

Code, § 1717), appellant could not qualify for an attorneys’ fee award because he always proceeded in propria persona. … However, that clause only clarifies that the litigation does not have to be strictly private enforcement to qualify for an award.

People v. Brisco CA5

California Court of Appeal · Nov 25, 2013

Brisco’s motion specifically pertained to the immunities in section 11362.775 which apply to medical marijuana collectives and members of such collectives who are “qualified patients” or “persons with valid identification … Kelly (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1008, 1017, fn. 9 [“[T]he MMP provides, in sections 11362.765 and 11362.775, immunity from criminal liability for other crimes, in addition to the offenses of marijuana possession and cultivation.”

Vebr v. Culp

241 Cal. App. 4th 1044 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 28, 2015

The Culps were insured under a homeowners insurance policy which provided workers’ compensation coverage for residence employees; Vebr did not qualify as a residence employee under that coverage. … “‘The moving party bears the burden of showing the court that the plaintiff “has not established, and cannot reasonably expect to establish, a prima facie case . . . .” [Citation.]’ [Citation.]

People v. Cummings

California Court of Appeal · Mar 24, 2021

Penal Code section 664 and 1159 “clearly apply to attempted crimes that are not specifically made punishable by provisions of the Penal Code.” (Garcia, at p. 2.) … Section 23550.5 does not add additional time to a sentencing range; it establishes a sentencing range for defendants with qualifying prior DUI convictions.

Slaughter v. Legal Process & Courier Service

162 Cal. App. 3d 1236 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 21, 1984

Unfair Competition and Unruh Act Violation The causes of action for unfair competition and violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act are clearly meritless. … Appellant’s proof at trial may establish that he is entitled to recover compensatory damages.

Draeger v. Reed

82 Cal. Rptr. 2d 378 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 18, 1999

The Nevada County District Attorney’s Office concluded the conviction under Florida former section 316.193 did not qualify as a conviction in California. The court dismissed the prior on the People’s motion. … The court ultimately ruled in Draeger’s favor on the question whether the Florida conviction qualified as a prior.

Estate of Sola

225 Cal. App. 3d 241 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 16, 1990

Appellant contends that the handwritten words at the top of the purported will are “self-contained” and qualify as a holographic will that is separate and does not integrate with the handwriting and typewritten words on the … stated: “No sound purpose or policy is served by invalidating a holograph where every statutorily required element of the will is concededly expressed in the testatrix’ own handwriting and where her testamentary intent is clearly

Goff v. County of Los Angeles CA2/2

California Court of Appeal · Mar 1, 2013

It isolated the portion of the statute providing immunity for ―‗any injury caused in fighting fires,‘‖ finding that the statute ―establishes sovereign immunity from claims based on such injuries‖ and determining that each … Appellants construe this qualifying statement as indicating that the Heieck and Moran court would not have applied immunity under section 850.4 if there had been a promise or representation involved.

Alden v. Hindin

2 Cal. Rptr. 3d 845 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 31, 2003

There is no evidence that the drafters of section 1714.10 intended such a gratuitously destructive result, and the language of subdivision (b) clearly shows that they did not. … “(d) This section establishes a special proceeding of a civil nature.

Harker v. Rickershauser

94 Cal. App. 755 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 14, 1928

Even assuming that such recitals could be established by inference, they would not be conclusive in an action between the parties to the trust deed. … The rule which should guide the court in this connection is clearly set forth in 2 C.

Conservatorship of Buchanan

78 Cal. App. 3d 281 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 7, 1978

We agree that the portion of the records consisting of observations of Buchanan by the VMC staff was clearly admissible. … Buchanan correctly points to the various preferences and priorities established by LPS for local treatments (§§ 5358, 5120) and placement with relatives.

People v. Ogg

219 Cal. App. 4th 173 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 29, 2013

Generally, failure to prevent a crime is insufficient to establish aiding and abetting liability. … The court qualified it by stating it was not an expert and was “in no position to diagnose that.”

Dept. of Corrections & Rehabilitation v. State Personnel Bd.

California Court of Appeal · Feb 7, 2022

Mabry-Height established a prima facie case of unlawful discrimination by producing evidence that she was not interviewed for positions for which she was well-qualified and less-qualified persons were hired for those positions … This step is designed to eliminate at the outset the most patently meritless claims, as where the plaintiff is not a member of the protected class or was clearly unqualified, or where the job [she] sought was withdrawn and

Balian v. Balian

179 Cal. App. 4th 1505 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 11, 2009

The section 21320 petition alleged: “[Mary’s intention] was clearly to preserve [Patricia’s] eligibility for government benefits which are available only to applicants with nonexempt resources of $2,000 or less. … Thus, section 21320 establishes a “safe harbor” for beneficiaries to seek a judicial determination of whether a proposed petition, motion, or action would be a contest.