Case law

Southern Pacific Transportation Co. v. Santa Fe Pacific Pipelines, Inc.

88 Cal. Rptr. 2d 777 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 15, 1999

Rents for pipelines constructed by Santa Fe were established through separate agreements. … Items two and three above clearly speak to a mutual intent. Moreover, Casey’s proffered testimony about reduc *1244 tion of width of the easement was not, as Santa Fe contends, cumulative.

Stevens v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Fresno

49 Cal. App. 3d 877 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 14, 1975

Noonan was not qualified to testify as an expert on Canon Law is without merit. … Noonan was qualified to testify as an expert on Canon Law.

Standard Register Co. v. Franchise Tax Board

259 Cal. App. 2d 125 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 19, 1968

that a business is a unitary *131 one, unity of ownership, is clearly present in our case. … As previously noted, Pacific division established its own prices based on costs and competitive conditions existing in the market area.

Westsiders Opposed etc. v. City of Los Angeles

California Court of Appeal · Oct 1, 2018

So guided, reason dictates that the full exercise of the power is permitted except as clearly and explicitly curtailed. … Westsiders did not raise this argument in the trial court. “ ‘It is well established that issues or theories not properly raised or presented in the trial court may not be asserted on appeal, and will not be considered by

Pacific Architects Collaborative v. State

100 Cal. App. 3d 110 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 10, 1979

‘Before a defendant’s motion can be granted, it must clearly appear that the action is without merit, and every reasonable doubt must be resolved in favor of the complaint. (Arnold v. … (but not necessarily the other) cannot be established.

Willbarb Petroleum Carriers, Inc. v. Cory

208 Cal. App. 3d 269 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 28, 1989

Plaintiff’s purchase of motor vehicle fuel in January and February of 1986 did not qualify for an exemption and thus plaintiff’s distributors paid tax on the distribution of the fuel and added the amount of the tax to the … It is well established that the only remedy for recovering taxes asserted to have been incorrectly paid is to comply with statutory provisions for obtaining a refund. (United States Steel Corp. v.

L.G. v. M.B.

California Court of Appeal · Jul 13, 2018

The plain language of section 47, subdivision (b)(1) establishes that only a qualified privilege applies to statements in the declaration that Appellant filed in her dissolution action, regardless of the policy concerns that … “To justify departing from a literal reading of a clearly worded statute, the results produced must be so unreasonable the Legislature could not have intended them.”

City of L.A. v. Super. Ct.

California Court of Appeal · Mar 2, 2017

record public clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record.’” … Moreover, a CPRA proceeding is clearly “civil in nature,” as it is “wholly unrelated to any criminal case.” (Moore v.

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.

Jorgensen v. Loyola Marymount University

California Court of Appeal · Sep 10, 2021

In 2014, Jorgensen was shocked when Ujlaki promoted Hernandez to Assistant Dean, because Jorgensen believed she was far more qualified and experienced than Hernandez. … An influential advisor who makes a clearly biased comment generates relatively potent evidence in a case like this. Where there is smoke, there might be fire.

Jorgensen v. Loyola Marymount University

California Court of Appeal · Sep 10, 2021

In 2014, Jorgensen was shocked when Ujlaki promoted Hernandez to Assistant Dean, because Jorgensen believed she was far more qualified and experienced than Hernandez. … An influential advisor who makes a clearly biased comment generates relatively potent evidence in a case like this. Where there is smoke, there might be fire.

In Re Amber B.

191 Cal. App. 3d 682 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 29, 1987

Kelly-Frye is clearly applicable where evidence is produced by a machine such as a lie detector, or by a physical testing procedure such as blood typing. … Raming could testify pursuant to Cheryl H., the Department made no attempt to establish general acceptance in the relevant scientific community. In cross-examining Dr.

Giammarrusco v. Simon

171 Cal. App. 4th 1586 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 12, 2009

[trust] in such a way as to immunize legal proceedings plainly intended to frustrate [the trustor’s] unequivocally expressed intent from the reach of the no-contest clause.’ ” (Burch v. … Here, the trustors’ intent is not so “clearly” or “unequivocally expressed” that it would be frustrated by the beneficiary’s proposed action.

Fox v. San Francisco Residential Rent Stabilization & Arbitration Board

169 Cal. App. 3d 651 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 25, 1985

Thus, even a substantial increase in financial costs does not automatically qualify on a dollar-for-dollar “pass-through” basis as provided in other parts of the ordinance. … The “pass-through” provisions are clearly limited to utilities, capital investment and rehabilitation work.

Appenfelder v. Security Trust & Savings Bank

99 Cal. App. 330 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 7, 1929

The premise thus laid down is in its essence the same as that established in Estate of Meyer, supra, from which we have already quoted. … To bring ourselves within one of the several rules to which we have referred, we have no right to read into our statute the words unless it clearly appears,’ or ‘was made in contemplation of marriage.’

Oltmans Construction Co. v. Bayside Interiors, Inc.

10 Cal. App. 5th 355 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 30, 2017

However, we question whether Bayside’s proffered evidence was sufficient to establish as a matter of law that Oltmans was negligent. … Another submission in support of the measure responded to the argument that the bill would “immunize[] a subcontractor from any liability for his/her own acts on a project” by pointing out that was “not true” and that “S.B

Summerfield v. City of Inglewood

California Court of Appeal · Oct 25, 2023

Otherwise, the general rule of immunity for public entities would be largely eroded by the routine application of general tort principles.” (Eastburn v. … establish the government employee’s liability for injury . . . aside from that of not maintaining a dangerous condition on its property.”

People v. Smith

43 Cal. App. 2d 110 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 17, 1941

Before we can set aside a judgment of conviction for a crime “it must be made clearly to appear that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support the conclusion reached in the court below … “Any question which would have the tendency to elicit from him the whole truth about any matter upon which he had been examined in chief or which would explain or qualify or destroy the force of his direct testimony . . .

Valentine v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals

194 Cal. App. 2d 282 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 26, 1961

, instructing it to apply the doctrine only if it found that those bases were established. … There was clearly sufficient evidence to justify the giving of “an” instruction on res ipsa loquitur. Condition (a) was supported by Dr.

Martin v. Szeto

114 Cal. Rptr. 2d 618 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 20, 2002

On May 15, 2000, appellants moved for summary judgment, contending that any alleged utterances about Martin were protected by the absolute privilege of Civil Code section 47, subdivision (b) and the qualified privilege under … "The Legislature has clearly enacted a policy of encouraging parties to accept arbitration awards" and has provided "`disincentives to trial de novo.'" ( Ibid. ) While former section 1021.1, subdivision (b) (Stats.1998, ch