Case law

Neumann v. Bishop

59 Cal. App. 3d 451 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 22, 1976

Wielt (1970) 4 Cal.App.3d 224 [ 84 Cal.Rptr. 220 ], “It is generally established that traffic officers whose duties include investigations of automobile accidents are qualified experts and may properly testify concerning … In fact she conceded he was a qualified economist. There was no abuse of discretion in ruling he was qualified. (See Naples Restaurant, Inc. v.

Dominguez v. Pantalone

212 Cal. App. 3d 201 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 19, 1989

Hindin questioned him concerning his experience in investigating and determining the cause of accidents, apparently in an attempt to qualify the officer as an expert. … Even were we to characterize his acts as misconduct, they clearly were not prejudicial.

Evans v. Eckelman

216 Cal. App. 3d 1609 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 9, 1990

I Plaintiffs rely on the rule delaying accrual until the plaintiff has discovered or should have discovered the facts establishing the essential elements of his or her cause of action. … The same rationale has been adopted where defendant held itself out or was required by law to be specially qualified in a trade. (Allred v.

Plummer v. Harris CA2/7

California Court of Appeal · Nov 5, 2013

Plummer has not established any deprivation of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. … are not correct.2 To the extent these arguments concern immunities, they are of no assistance to him, as Plummer cannot demonstrate a probability of success on the merits regardless of immunities.

Reid & Sibell Inc. v. Gilmore & Edwards Co.

134 Cal. App. 2d 60 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 24, 1955

Under this rule, the Eire Code provision is even more clearly proof against the claim of uncertainty. … Also, these thinners were kept in and handled by the paint department of this established supply firm.

Jonathan Vo v. Las Virgenes Municipal Water District

94 Cal. Rptr. 2d 143 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 28, 2000

Under the lodestar method, a party who qualifies for a fee should recover for all hours reasonably spent unless special circumstances would render an award unjust. (Serrano v. … to review, it will not be disturbed unless the appellate *448 court is convinced that it is clearly .wrong.’ ” (Serrano v.

Moten v. Transworld Systems Inc.

California Court of Appeal · Jan 5, 2024

However, these allegations do not conclusively establish illegal activity. … In that event, unfair debt collection practices could be immunized merely by filing suit on the debt. . . .

People v. Bui

103 Cal. Rptr. 2d 908 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 7, 2001

In Pittel’s view, the statistics used by Logan, concerning traffic fatalities in which drivers had used methamphetamine, did not establish a causal link between the use of methamphetamine and the traffic accident. … In determining whether to admit expert testimony, the trial court has broad discretion, and we may not interfere with that discretion unless it is clearly abused. (People v.

People v. Meraz CA5

California Court of Appeal · May 24, 2016

At most, the evidence showed he associated with Sanchez, whom the evidence established was not a qualified patient. (Cf. Orlosky, supra, 233 Cal.App.4th at pp. 271-272; People v. … Well, his statement was clearly no. He thought he was doing okay.

Bell v. City of Mountain View

66 Cal. App. 3d 332 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 11, 1977

concern; (2) the subject matter has been partially covered by general law couched in such terms as to indicate clearly that a paramount state concern will not tolerate further or additional local action; or (3) the subject … Abuse of discretion is established if the respondent has not proceeded as required by law, if the order or decision is not supported by the findings, or if the findings are not supported by the evidence. (Code Civ.

City of Bell v. Super. Ct.

California Court of Appeal · Oct 25, 2013

the California Supreme Court articulated the appropriate standard of review for the interpretation of noninsurance indemnity agreements: ―subject to public policy and 13 established … The language of the indemnity clause clearly applies to third-party civil actions, not criminal complaints and indictments.

People v. Hammer

115 Cal. Rptr. 2d 144 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 17, 2002

s writings clearly constitute a "statement" within the meaning of the Evidence Code. Thus, there was no error in admitting K.'s writings as "statements" pursuant to Evidence Code section 1360. … [Defendant] claims that under established rules of statutory construction, we must adopt that latter interpretation because it is more favorable to him. . . . We disagree. [¶] `In People v.

San Bruno Committee for Economic Justice v. City of San Bruno

California Court of Appeal · Sep 20, 2017

After opponents obtained enough signatures to qualify a referendum on the ballot, the city awarded the same franchise a year-long interim contract to cover the period until the referendum election. … Lindelli is clearly distinguishable because the contract at issue in that case was to provide services to the municipality. Here, OTO will not be providing any services to the City or its residents.

Ryerson v. Riverside Cement Co.

266 Cal. App. 2d 789 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 23, 1968

The complaint in intervention alleged in substance that Phillips had failed to collect the full amount of the established minimum rate for the shipments in question, that Phillips and Riverside filed the agreed statement … Hayes Cal Builders, Inc., supra, the petition and complaint in intervention clearly reveal that intervention was premised on the absence of a valid judgment.

Del Paso Recreation & Park District v. Board of Supervisors

33 Cal. App. 3d 483 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 18, 1973

Clearly, therefore, written protests filed by a larger percentage than the statutory minimum of the voters qualified by residence could force such an election upon the Board before approval of a reorganization. *493 Were … Here, plaintiffs have failed to plead facts sufficient to establish the first three requisite elements of an estoppel.

Connerly v. State Personnel Board

112 Cal. Rptr. 2d 5 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 4, 2001

or may become qualified through appropriate training or experience within a reasonable length of time. … , and recruiting qualified members of underrepresented groups, and in establishing and maintaining effective affirmative action hiring procedures.

Ford v. Polaris Industries, Inc.

43 Cal. Rptr. 3d 215 · California Court of Appeal · May 18, 2006

Two surgeries were required to prepare and *760 establish a colostomy. Medical records indicate she also required “massive resuscitation . . . from her initial operation.” … Polaris designated Daniel Schroepher as the employee most qualified to address safety features on the SLH such as rear passenger seating, safety testing and safety studies.

Lucas v. City of Long Beach

60 Cal. App. 3d 341 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 21, 1976

The autopsy conclusively established that in fact Stephen suffered from no other pathology. … Stephen was not in fact in need of immediate medical care and clearly lack of medical care did not “cause” the death.

Bland v. Reed

261 Cal. App. 2d 445 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 23, 1968

This was an important transaction requiring specialized skill, and defendant clearly was not qualified to undertake it. His conduct was not only negligent but was also highly improper. … Such conduct should he discouraged and not protected by immunity from civil liability, as would be the case if plaintiff, the only person who suffered a loss, were denied a right of action.” (Italics added.)

Berg & Berg Enterprises, LLC v. Sherwood Partners, Inc.

32 Cal. Rptr. 3d 325 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 29, 2005

This principle is known as the “agent’s immunity rule,” which establishes that “an agent is not liable for conspiring with the principal when the agent is acting in an official capacity on behalf of the principal.” … Lyman (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 1093, 1106 [ 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 236 ], the Court of Appeal held that “attorneys for the former trustees of a testamentary trust (who clearly owed a fiduciary duty to their clients but not to the trust