Case law

Scott v. Burbank Unified School District CA2/5

California Court of Appeal · May 24, 2023

claims it is’ or establish ‘such facts by any other means provided by law.’ … Even if the email were admissible, it would not qualify as a government claim.

Giraldo v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation

168 Cal. App. 4th 231 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 14, 2008

This, in turn, established a duty of care to protect [plaintiff] under Williams v. … “The most important of [the] considerations in establishing duty is forseeability.

P. v. Cardona CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · Mar 12, 2013

We may reverse a court's ruling on an expert's qualifications only if the evidence shows the witness clearly lacks qualification as an expert. (People v. Robinson (2005) 37 Cal.4th 592, 632.) … If they're a qualified caretaker, which occurs in California law, in some cases they can be qualified to assist someone else in that endeavor.

People v. Lipptrapp

California Court of Appeal · Feb 2, 2021

establish entitlement to the sought after relief. … However, this error does not matter because he would have qualified under 3051 whether he was 24 or 25 years old. 6 Senate Bill No. 620 (2017-2018 Reg.

Saint Germain Foundation v. County of Siskiyou

212 Cal. App. 2d 911 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 13, 1963

It is qualified to operate in California. The foundation was founded in 1932 by Edna W. Ballard and her husband, G. W. Ballard, now deceased. … Shasta City, at the Amphitheatre and at Shasta Springs: It is now well established that residential quarters of persons required to reside in exempt premises for reasons of ‘institutional necessity as contrasted with mere

Pope v. State Board of Equalization

202 Cal. App. 3d 73 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 14, 1988

These sources clearly interpret section 6396 as denying sales tax exemption when delivery of the property is made to the purchaser in California. … Regulation 1620, subdivision (a)(1), states “The retailer has the burden of proving facts establishing his right to exemption.”

Alpha Therapeutic Corp. v. Franchise Tax Board

100 Cal. Rptr. 2d 548 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 11, 2000

The taxpayer has the burden of showing that he clearly comes within the exemption. [Citations.] … However, Hyland also recognized that “section 1606 does not immunize [commercial vendors] from liability.

Wilkins v. Ahern CA1/2

California Court of Appeal · Feb 28, 2013

California (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 224, 3 Federal courts interpreting Civil Code section 52.1 prior to Shoyoye split regarding whether a Fourth Amendment excessive force or false arrest violation alone qualifies … He does not establish a reason for reversal of this portion of the trial court’s ruling.

Gray v. Rheem Manufacturing Co.

143 Cal. App. 2d 537 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 30, 1956

The facts of our case as set out above clearly make the reasoning of the court in the Minard case inapplicable. … In these instructions the words “if any” were used to qualify such phrases as “the injuries proved to have been sustained,” “amount of such damages,” “anxiety and suffering,” “expenses incurred,” and “ time lost.’’

Schaefer's Ambulance Service v. County of San Bernardino

80 Cal. Rptr. 2d 385 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 10, 1998

The EMS Act expressly cloaks counties which create exclusive operating areas pursuant to the Act in state-action immunity from federal antitrust law. (Health & Saf. Code, § 1797.6.) … in which an individual has a need for immediate medical attention or where the potential for *589 such need is perceived by emergency medical personnel, a public safety agency, or—with respect to interfacility transfers—qualified

County of Orange v. Quinn

118 Cal. Rptr. 2d 833 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 18, 2002

The closest express exception contained in the Code of Civil Procedure is section 583.161, which rather clearly applies only to cases where there is a petition for marital dissolution: “No petition filed pursuant to Section … The text of section 583.161 thus unambiguously extends immunity from the five-year rule no further than marital dissolution cases. *961 Why the Legislature should have seen fit to draft the exemption so narrowly in 1994 is

Taheri Law Group v. Evans

72 Cal. Rptr. 3d 847 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 26, 2008

[“[t]he purpose of the statute appears to have been to immunize comparative advertising by retailers from the special motion to strike statute”]; Sen. Com. on Judiciary, Rep. on Sen. Bill No. 515 (2003-2004 Reg. … Because that is so, the alleged conduct clearly does not fall within the intendment of the statutory exemption. Indeed, the activity alleged is the very sort of activity the anti-SLAPP statute is designed to cover.

City & County of S.F. v. Public Employment Relations Bd.

California Court of Appeal · Jun 22, 2026

We therefore “ ‘follow PERB’s interpretation [of the MMBA] unless it is clearly erroneous.’ ” (Id. at p. 912.) … This carefully qualified response arguably implies that some of the carve-outs do apply to exempt employees.

Enriquez v. City of Sierra Madre CA2/7

California Court of Appeal · Oct 16, 2013

The court noted that FEHA does not clearly define who qualifies as an employee: “As observed in Shephard, supra, 102 Cal.App.4th at pages 867-847, the statutory definition of ‘employee’ found at [Government Code] section … Immunity Enriquez also argues that the City failed to establish that it had immunity from liability for her common law causes of action for wrongful termination (causes of action 2-3).

People v. Cook

146 Cal. App. 2d 1 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 13, 1956

Objection is made that one witness was allowed to testify as an expert without qualifying as such. This witness did not testify as an expert, but only as to what he did in filling the order on December 22. … reasonable doubt in this connection, which might or might not otherwise have existed, was apparently removed by the conflicting statements and admissions made by the appellant, and by his own testimony on the stand which rather clearly

In Re Kyle

77 Cal. App. 2d 634 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 14, 1947

If Norma Jean was domiciled in Nevada at the time the decree was entered that clearly would be sufficient to give the Nevada court jurisdiction to award her custody to petitioner. … The rule is a qualified one only.

Blue Star Line, Inc. v. City & County of San Francisco

77 Cal. App. 3d 429 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 8, 1978

The court has since qualified the effect of this view, and distinguished Spalding and Richfield, by holding that the import-export clause does not bar a local tax which reaches only the dockside “handling” of articles in … As we have observed, neither the pleadings nor the stipulated facts establish the identity of the home or flag nation of any one of the steamship lines. (See fn. 2, ante.)

Gill v. De Sanz

52 Cal. App. 3d 457 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 24, 1975

These consolidated appeals involve the attachment of California assets of three Mexican corporations, not qualified to do business in California, who are among the defendants below. … With respect to bank accounts, there is established a $ 1,000 exemption from the levy of a writ of attachment, in order clearly to avoid any situation where an individual defendant might be prevented from paying for his own

People v. Williams

California Court of Appeal · Apr 10, 2020

Moreover, it " 'is an established tenet of statutory construction that separate items in a statute should be given meaning with reference to the whole, and that each word and phrase in the statute should be interpreted … an individual as such an offender; that public policy actually favors the majority's construction of section 3000.08, as our 23 Legislature clearly limited PRCS to low-risk

Swanson v. Morongo Unif. School Dist. CA4/3

232 Cal. App. 4th 954 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 26, 2014

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 he sought was withdrawn and never … Cal.App.4th 1376, 1384 (Spitzer).) 16  The elements of a failure to accommodate claim are “(1) the plaintiff has a disability under the FEHA, (2) the plaintiff is qualified