Case law

Winkler v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group

141 Cal. App. 2d 738 · California Court of Appeal · May 23, 1956

At the trial the plaintiffs produced qualified physicians who testified that Dr. … The evidence establishes without conflict that several weeks after Dr. Shapiro had taken his X-rays, Mrs.

Perez v. Oakdale Irrigation District CA5

California Court of Appeal · Dec 20, 2023

This provision establishes what is commonly referred to as canal immunity. With important limitations, it immunizes the government against liability for injuries caused by the condition of canals, conduits, or drains. … provisions of section 831.8 establish that immunity applies to people who knowingly use a canal, conduit or drain “despite being aware of the potentially dangerous nature of the water feature.”

Notrica v. State Compensation Insurance Fund

83 Cal. Rptr. 2d 89 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 17, 1999

Counsel explained that it was the plaintiff’s burden to establish clearly and convincingly that SCIF had engaged in conduct that was malicious or fraudulent or oppressive. … Counsel’s argument clearly established the nexus between the conduct supporting the award of bad faith and SCIF’s concealment of those facts.

A.H. v. Labana CA1/1

California Court of Appeal · Dec 15, 2022

The trial court’s order granting Labana’s anti-SLAPP motion recognized that plaintiffs’ cause of action against Labana alleged in part: “ ‘Labana published the Facebook Post, which clearly depicted and identified A.H. and … Indeed, it establishes the opposite.

People v. Wade

204 Cal. App. 4th 1142 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 9, 2012

While a loss of consciousness may qualify as serious bodily injury, whether it so qualifies in this case is a matter for the jury to determine.” … Similar to the circumstances in Vinson , the 2010 amendment to section 487 mitigated punishment by raising the value of the stolen property required to establish the crime of grand theft, and the Legislature was motivated

City of Oakland v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

120 Cal. Rptr. 2d 873 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 11, 2002

As a result, “[t]he Legislature’s expressed intent in enacting Labor Code section 3208.3 was to establish a new and higher threshold of compensability for psychiatric injury.” … Had Oakland done no more than send Gullet the June 16, 1999 termination letter, section 3208.3, subdivision (h) clearly would have exempted it from his claim.

St. James Church of Christ Holiness v. Superior Court

135 Cal. App. 2d 352 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 8, 1955

The allegations of the pleading and the relief sought establish the character of the action. (Id.) … The defendant, Daniel Boone, is also a duly elected and qualified trustee of the plaintiff but is not now acting as such and has not acted as such for almost a year last past.

Barclay Kitchen, Inc. v. California Bank

208 Cal. App. 2d 347 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 10, 1962

The primary cause of Barclay’s loss clearly was Mrs. Gianopulus’ thefts. … But this rule is further qualified: The defendant’s act must also be a legal or proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury. (Champion v. Bennetts, 37 Cal.2d 815, 821 [ 236 P.2d 155 ].)

Kuhn v. Gottfried

103 Cal. App. 2d 80 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 26, 1951

The findings of the trial court may be summarized as follows: That defendant advertised that he would sell a “completely equipped medical office and case records, best remunerative, strictly cash, practice established 18 … Thereafter, a second amended complaint was filed upon a different theory, but this, in our opinion, does not affect the merits of respondent’s position. '.The existence, of this litigation was. clearly,a,most material fact

Maleki v. County of Los Angeles CA2/2

California Court of Appeal · Jan 6, 2014

The siren made a deep “honk honk” sound that Mouradian heard clearly, though his window was closed. Mouradian slowed down even though he had a green light. … The court decided that Rahn is not qualified to testify about Los Angeles procedures and Riverside procedures are not relevant.

People v. Spark

16 Cal. Rptr. 3d 840 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 2, 2004

Eidelman opined appellant was in fact a seriously ill patient who qualified for medicinal marijuana to treat his pain. On cross-examination, Dr. … Bearman considered appellant’s condition to be serious, qualifying for medicinal marijuana. Appellant took the stand on his own behalf.

Warren v. Herndon

115 Cal. App. 3d 141 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 26, 1981

This statement on behalf of plaintiffs clearly waived any objection by them thereafter with respect to the admissibility of any relevant evidence filed in support of the motion. … specifically averred that what defendants attached to his declaration was the audible portions of the minutes of that membership meeting. 3 We note that Herndon’s statements were made under circumstances bringing them within the qualified

Compton College Federation of Teachers, Local No. 3486 AFT v. Compton Community College District

132 Cal. App. 3d 704 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 10, 1982

In this context the word “will” is qualified by the phrase “in general,” and hence the word “will” has a permissive rather than a mandatory meaning. … The word “may” in the phrase “. . . he may refer ...” contained in board policy 2.034, subdivision i, is clearly permissive.

John J. v. Garrett S.

112 Cal. App. 4th 538 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 3, 2003

The trial court determined that an unwed father who could have been charged with misdemeanor unlawful sexual intercourse could never qualify as a Kelsey S. presumed father. … Accordingly, Adoption of Kelsey S. does not preclude appellant from establishing a constitutional right to block the adoption of his child.

Tunstall v. Wells

50 Cal. Rptr. 3d 468 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 31, 2006

Here, as we have discussed, Wells’s intent to establish a forfeiture condition was clear. F. … A public policy that has not been clearly expressed by the Legislature should at least be fundamental, substantial, and firmly established. (See Foley v.

Muir v. Grier

160 Cal. App. 2d 671 · California Court of Appeal · May 20, 1958

It does not appear that Officer Petersen had even seen the drawing before and as he had neither prepared it nor exhibit 1, the question was clearly improper and the objection thereto properly sustained. … In answer to a previous ques *679 tion designed to qualify the witness as an expert, he testified that he “could state what the minimum reaction time is that I have encountered, hut I couldn’t say that that was the minimum

The People v. Ramirez

California Court of Appeal · Sep 12, 2013

After Menchaca initially refused to answer those questions, the prosecution, out of concern his testimony would otherwise be stricken, granted Menchaca immunity for his own involvement in those incidents. … [Thus] the reasonable doubt standard applies to a defense which, „if established[,] would tend to overcome or negate proof of any element of the crime charged as otherwise established by the People.‟ [Citation.]

P. v. Seymore CA1/2

California Court of Appeal · May 1, 2013

Clearly the information is on February 24.” 8 The prosecutor confirmed that his questions “pertain[] to the day before.” … , defendant could not establish prejudice.

P. v. Seymore CA1/2

California Court of Appeal · Apr 12, 2013

Clearly the information is on February 24.” 8 The prosecutor confirmed that his questions “pertain[] to the day before.” … , defendant could not establish prejudice.

Bank of America v. City of Long Beach

50 Cal. App. 3d 882 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 25, 1975

Clearly, evidence to be used against a party must be disclosed in such fashion that there is an opportunity to rebut it. (Endler v. Schutzbank, supra, 68 Cal.2d at p. 172 ; People ex rel. Dept. Pub. Wks. v. … Probably deliberate change in or deviation from established administrative policy should be permitted so long as the action is not arbitrary or unreasonable.