Case law

Environmental Protection Information Center v. Department of Forestry & Fire Protection

43 Cal. App. 4th 1011 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 18, 1996

It held that, inasmuch as the Pacific Legal Foundation had pleaded that it, too, was an employer and subject to the defendant board’s overall, long-term regulation (including its precedent decisions), it qualified as an interested … It stated the general rule to be as follows: “[I]t is the board, and not the courts, that establishes forest policy, nn . . .

People v. Kellett

134 Cal. App. 3d 949 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 21, 1982

The People relied on Penal Code section 781 in establishing jurisdiction in Kern County. … Guilt is established if the defendant maintains the intent to merely temporarily deprive the owner of possession.

Sheffield v. Eli Lilly & Co.

144 Cal. App. 3d 583 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 8, 1983

(Franklin and Mais, supra, 65 Cal.L.Rev. at pp. 769-775; Appel, Liability in Mass Immunization Programs (1980) B.Y.U. L.Rev. 69, 69-75, 90-91; and see In re Swine Flu Immunization Prod. Liability Lit. … In any event the record in this case reflects a situation clearly falling within the principles which led that court to reject the plaintiffs’ reliance on that doctrine.

Pettebone v. County of Alameda

239 Cal. App. 2d 401 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 18, 1966

Furthermore, from the opinion’s analysis of Guardianship of Thrasher (1951) 105 Cal.App.2d 768 [ 234 P.2d 230 ], and Estate of Risse (1957) 156 Cal.App.2d 412 [ 319 P.2d 789 ] ( 60 Cal.2d at p. 719 ), and its failure to qualify … No special privileges or immunities shall ever be granted which may not he altered, revoked, or repealed by the Legislature; nor shall any citizen, or class of citizens, be granted privileges or immunities which, upon the

Tinsley v. Palo Alto Unified School District

91 Cal. App. 3d 871 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 13, 1979

The court concluded: “Article IX, section 14 of the state Constitution clearly establishes that it is the Legislature which bears the ultimate responsibility for establishing school districts and their boundaries. … Privileges or immunities granted by the .egislature may be altered or revoked.”

People v. Morales

77 Cal. App. 483 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 17, 1926

It is due to *487 this court from the members of the bar to point out clearly and concisely the rulings complained of as erroneous and the reasons why they are so, with reference to authorities, if any. … If, however, the element of “time, place and persons present” were an essential component of the foundation to be established as a prerequisite to the admissibility of evidence of a confession, there would still be no ground

People v. Superior Court

213 Cal. App. 4th 774 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 7, 2013

Karsai argues that this latter statute, “by use of the conjunctive ‘or’ between ‘community’ and ‘specific address’ thus clearly contemplates that an SVP may be released with a ‘specific address’, i.e., as a non-transient, … The point is that, contrary to Karsai’s assertion, subdivision (c) of section 6609.1 does not “clearly” contemplate release into a community as a transient without a fixed residential address.

Herzberg v. County of Plumas

34 Cal. Rptr. 3d 588 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 3, 2005

” deprived them of the privileges and immunities owed to them under section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. … Section 9-6.04(a) does not establish any control or system of controls on the price of pasturage in the open grazing areas.

People v. Nazary

191 Cal. App. 4th 727 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 13, 2010

Moreover, to the extent an error could be found in the court’s denial of Nazary’s motion to exclude the video, the error was clearly harmless. … The record here does not reflect any objection to Stegall being qualified or testifying as an expert.

Phillips v. County of Fresno

225 Cal. App. 3d 1240 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 30, 1990

Discussion Part I Propriety of Mandamus Citing the well-established rule that mandamus will not lie when there is a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law (Code Civ. … Relief will be granted unless clearly forbidden by statute. [Citations.]

Marron v. Superior Court

134 Cal. Rptr. 2d 358 · California Court of Appeal · May 21, 2003

RUC filed a response, arguing the trial court correctly concluded it was immune under Government Code section 818 from liability for section 15657 enhanced remedies. … For a defendant to prevail on a summary adjudication motion, the defendant generally must establish an affirmative defense or show one or more elements of the cause of action cannot be established. (Code Civ.

D. G. v. Superior Court

100 Cal. App. 3d 535 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 27, 1979

However, as previously noted, the action to determine parentage under the circumstances of this case is clearly authorized by the provisions of section 11350.1 Inasmuch as the complaint asks for no more than is proper within … be qualified to handle the estate.

Scott v. Los Angeles Mountain Park Co.

92 Cal. App. 258 · California Court of Appeal · May 29, 1928

The testimony called for was so clearly hearsay that no citation of authorities is necessary to show the correctness of the ruling of the trial court. … Lloyd was a director of the corporation does not establish agency. The case of Maynard v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 34 Cal. 48 [ 91 Am.

Welch v. State of California

139 Cal. App. 3d 546 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 28, 1983

Even though Warner clearly refers to three independent situations in which liability may be imposed (see also generally 4 Witkin, Summary of Cal. … The undisclosed information doubtless would have qualified or cast doubt upon any false impression of favorable tide conditions given by the tide data in the general note.

People v. Glass

California Court of Appeal · Apr 22, 2025

Senate Bill No. 1437 also created a procedure for persons convicted of qualifying offenses under the former homicide laws to seek resentencing if they could no longer be convicted under the amended law. … Supreme Court has explained the “record of conviction will necessarily inform the trial court’s prima facie inquiry under section [1172.6], allowing the court to distinguish petitions with potential merit from those that are clearly

Daves v. City of Cathedral City CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · Dec 6, 2023

, or (2) an affirmative defense to it can be established. … County of Orange (1970) 3 Cal.App.3d 1053, in which the court explained that: “If the words ‘the exercise of the discretion’ were to be given a broad, literal interpretation, section 820.2 could be invoked to establish immunity

Henninger v. Southern Pacific Co.

250 Cal. App. 2d 872 · California Court of Appeal · May 11, 1967

The evidence offered was clearly hearsay and as such properly excluded. … If such a witness had been called, his testimony would have been given under oath, subject to cross-examination, and thus immune to the hearsay objection.

Sisemore v. Master Financial, Inc.

60 Cal. Rptr. 3d 719 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 12, 2007

such establishments. … II.) 20 The legislative history of section 12955.8 clearly demonstrates the recognition that housing discrimination under FEHA may be established either by disparate treatment or by disparate impact. (See also Assem.

Siry Investment v. Farkhondehpour

California Court of Appeal · Mar 3, 2020

On the one hand, litigants served with discovery requests encompassing fewer than every issue would be immune from terminating sanctions, and thus freer to ignore those requests—or orders compelling compliance with them—because … Time and again, our Supreme Court has refused to “‘presume that the Legislature intends, when it enacts a statute, to overthrow long-established principles of law unless such intention is clearly expressed or necessarily

Pina v. County of Los Angeles

California Court of Appeal · Aug 7, 2019

The duty to summon immediate care is of a “limited nature,” which “makes sense given that the statute carves that duty out of a broad, general immunity.” (Castaneda v. … change and unspecified sources establishing that a bone fracture or major ligament disruption is necessary to find a significant change between X-rays.