Case law

Martin v. Postal Union Life Insurance

16 Cal. App. 2d 570 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 28, 1936

The ruling of the court was and is clearly erroneous, the court seeming to labor under the impression that the plaintiff was under the necessity of alleging fraud, undue influence, mistake, etc., in order to introduce such … This court there said: “As against the special defense, the plaintiff relied upon testimony to establish fraud, menace, duress and undue influence, and specially, that the signature of the plaintiff to the paper hereinafter

American Indian Model Schools v. Oakland Unified School District

227 Cal. App. 4th 258 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 23, 2014

Furthermore, the report prepared to consider whether to renew a charter does not establish that the District properly evaluated this information when deciding to revoke the charter. … Defendants’ reading of subdivision (i) of section 47607 is clearly inaccurate.

Jenkins v. Brandt-Hawley

California Court of Appeal · Dec 28, 2022

Here, Judge Sweet, in denying the petition, and Judge Chou, in denying the SLAPP motion, both found that the CEQA claim was clearly barred by this requirement. … All three amicus briefs suggest that CEQA-related cases should be in essence immune or insulated from malicious prosecution cases, arguing things such as CEQA is too “uncertain” and too “complicated” for there ever to be

Watts v. Oak Shores Community Assn.

235 Cal. App. 4th 466 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 24, 2015

Second, the regulation is qualified by the word "ordinarily." (Ibid.) 8 It clearly does not state an immutable rule. Third, the regulation applies to "[r]egular assessments." … The court found that the evidence established a "reasonably close" relationship between each contested fee and the cost it is intended to offset.

Bartalo v. Superior Court

51 Cal. App. 3d 526 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 19, 1975

It established for the first time in California that the spouse of an injured person in a tort action has a right of recovery for loss of consortium. … We are not unaware of cases that have allowed the addition of a new party by an amendment to the complaint. 3 However, these cases on analysis are clearly distinguishable.

Pacific Employers Insurance Co. v. Carpenter

10 Cal. App. 2d 592 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 12, 1935

Petitioner is an insurance corporation qualified under the laws of this state to engage in the business of accident and health insurance. … Any such agreement is clearly condemned as unlawful and against public policy by the authorities above cited. Petitioner discusses at some length the social and economic need for health insurance.

Lucich v. City of Oakland

19 Cal. App. 4th 494 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 21, 1993

employees who were less qualified or less meritorious. … However, as our Supreme Court held in Neary, supra, “The well-established rule is that we should avoid advisory opinions. [Citation.]” ( 3 Cal.4th at p. 284 .)

Levin v. United Air Lines, Inc.

70 Cal. Rptr. 3d 535 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 14, 2008

Instead, the court granted the individual defendants’ motion for summary judgment based on the qualified immunity doctrine and granted the department’s motion on the grounds that there was “no . . . showing of an unconstitutional … (italics added).) 19 As Penal Code section 148.1 provides for imprisonment in state prison, violation of that section qualifies as a felony (Pen.

Greco v. Greco

2 Cal. App. 5th 810 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 23, 2016

The court found “the clearly protected activity (here the litigation) was merely incidental to the challenged conduct (disbursement of estate and trust funds without consent).” … (e).) 9  “[I]n order to establish the requisite probability of prevailing (§ 425.16, subd.

People v. Ottombrino

127 Cal. App. 3d 574 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 7, 1982

In his motion for new trial, Ottombrino charged prosecutorial misconduct based on what was clearly a misunderstanding of the evidence. … Maximum aggregate terms were established and limitations were provided for.

O'Shea v. City of San Diego CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · Jul 19, 2022

Finally, they argued they were immune from liability under Government Code sections 820.2 and 820.4, and they were entitled to qualified immunity for the first cause of action (section 1983). … Code, §§ 820.2 and 820.4) and entitled to qualified immunity.

Lin v. State of California

93 Cal. Rptr. 2d 88 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 8, 2000

Appellants may continue to provide services to qualified patients “subject to the inconvenience of obtaining prior authorization” for restorative services. (Margulis v. Myers, supra, 122 Cal.App.3d at p. 342 .) … The additional information the trial court ordered respondents to provide clearly specified the problem: multiple fillings on the same date of service.

Fleming v. Superior Court

191 Cal. App. 4th 73 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 21, 2010

As the court said: “Clearly, prior to and through the drafting stage of a proposed initiative, the action is not taken to attempt to influence voters either to qualify or to pass an initiative measure; there is as yet nothing … Nothing had qualified for any ballot. The lists were strictly internal, hence clearly not devoted to “urging” support or defeat of anyone or anything.

People Ex Rel. Klevesahl v. City of San Bruno

124 Cal. App. 2d 790 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 28, 1954

A petition had been received by the council signed by at least one-quarter of the qualified resident electors of Lomita Park requesting that such annexation election be held. … On November 8, 1950, a judgment was entered in that action which established the boundaries of Millbrae as including the school district area marked "B.” That decision is final and is not challenged on this appeal.

Ralph B. v. State Department of Health

44 Cal. App. 3d 699 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 20, 1975

unreasonableness, the arbitrariness and the caprice, lie precisely with this extraordinary emphasis on a single negative factor in the face of remarkably unanimous opinion that by all other standards the appellees are outstandingly qualified … The first consideration above clearly applies to the first few years.

Save Our Big Trees v. City of Santa Cruz

241 Cal. App. 4th 694 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 23, 2015

NS-23,710), which established the “only circumstances” in which a heritage tree or shrub could be “altered or removed.” … The prior version of the Heritage Tree Ordinance required the establishment of more general “mitigation requirements” and did not mention deadlines.

McCoy v. Pacific Maritime Asso.

216 Cal. App. 4th 283 · California Court of Appeal · May 14, 2013

We conclude, as a matter of law, this evidence is insufficient to establish PMA was her employer as that term is used in FEHA. … The court concluded that revealing the “shocking photo” to the jury was “clearly detrimental” to respondents and had a “material adverse effect” on them.

Millet v. Taylor

26 Cal. App. 161 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 4, 1914

On the other hand, the defendants insisted in the court below, as they urge here, that the understanding had by both parties of the meaning of the lease, at the time of its execution, and which understanding does not clearly … But, where, as is certainly true here, “the language employed be fairly susceptible of either one of the two interpretations contended for, without doing violence to its usual and ordinary import, or some established rule

M. W. v. Panama Buena Vista Union School District

1 Cal. Rptr. 3d 673 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 11, 2003

The principles pertaining to a school district’s duty to supervise students are well established. … This was clearly a troubled child and the District knew it.

People v. Whitney

121 Cal. App. 2d 515 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 24, 1953

a verdict of guilty if the jury found that the defendant had fraudulently appropriated an amount less than $200; that it erred in quoting sections of the Civil Code, relating to the duties of a trustee, without properly qualifying … The instruction in which the jury was told that it must find the defendant guilty if it found that he fraudulently took the money mentioned in the information “or any part of it” is clearly erroneous since it authorized a