Case law

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.

Borello v. Eichler Homes, Inc.

221 Cal. App. 2d 487 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 24, 1963

A California statute qualifies these broad rules and grants relief in situations where errors in the description of the property might otherwise be productive of harsh results. … No additional identifying facts were present which, when considered with the description, established that it pointed clearly to the property sought to be charged.

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.”

Pellegrini v. Weiss

165 Cal. App. 4th 515 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 29, 2008

To establish this claim, a party must prove all of the following: [j[] 1. That the other party breached the duty to act in the highest good faith toward them; [j[] 2. That they were harmed; and [][] 3. … Pellegrini’s service as a real estate agent was clearly contemplated by the parties, and he did in fact serve in that role to a degree.

Canister v. Emergency Ambulance Service, Inc.

72 Cal. Rptr. 3d 792 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 22, 2008

Code, § 6146) and whether negligence in operating an ambulance qualifies as professional negligence. … The Legislature’s use of the phrase “[a]ny reference in” clearly indicates a broader application than contended by appellant.

Gardner v. Rich Manufacturing Co., Ltd.

68 Cal. App. 2d 725 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 14, 1945

The ease clearly has no application here for in that case there was involved a question of determining whether or not the charges were in excess of a reasonable rate. … Fans qualified as an expert auditor in rate matters. He explained to the court what particular decisions, orders and rates he used in making up the exhibits attached to plaintiffs’ complaints.

McKeon v. Hastings College of the Law

185 Cal. App. 3d 877 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 22, 1986

Hastings also established a committee to advise it in planning and implementing the relocation program. … The need for housing clearly qualifies as one of the most basic “social and economic realities of the present-day organization of society” and has been recognized as such. (See Raven’s Cove Townhomes, Inc. v.

City of Vallejo v. Super. Ct.

California Court of Appeal · Jun 27, 2025

Our standard of review of a challenged ruling under the CPRA is well established. “ ‘ “Factual findings made by the trial court will be upheld if based on substantial evidence. … In short, as the ACLU sees it, the independent investigator was clearly “investigating the conduct of officers in shootings.”

Third Laguna Hills Mutual v. Joslin

California Court of Appeal · May 26, 2020

party has the burden to establish that its challenged claims have at least “‘minimal merit.’” … The former enshrines a substantive rule of law that grants absolute immunity from tort liability for communications made in relation to judicial proceedings [citation]; the latter is a procedural device for screening out

Imig v. Ferrar

70 Cal. App. 3d 48 · California Court of Appeal · May 24, 1977

It is now well established that this privilege extends to transactions of administrative boards and quasi-judicial proceedings. (King v. … Sullivant, 32 Cal.App.3d 619, 625 [ 108 Cal.Rptr. 451 ] (private hospital board established pursuant to Bus. & Prof. Code, § 2392.5); Frisk v.

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

In Re Washer

78 Cal. App. 759 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 21, 1926

“No special privileges or immunities shall ever be granted which may not be altered, revoked, or repealed by the legislature, nor shall any citizen-, or class of citizens, be granted privileges or immunities which, upon the … The names of the instruments or securities which precede that word in strictness do not establish such a genus. Therefore, the words which follow it need not belong to that genus.

Young v. County of Marin

195 Cal. App. 3d 863 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 26, 1987

The United States Supreme Court has also confirmed this principle. (3) "It is clearly established that a State may not discharge an employee on a basis that infringes that employee's constitutionally protected interest in … 324-325, 107 S.Ct. at pp. 2896-2897].) (5) Thus, it is clear that although Government Code section 815 provides that public entities are not liable for injuries "[e]xcept as otherwise provided by statute," they are not immune

In Re Marriage of Clark

80 Cal. App. 3d 417 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 26, 1978

Perry agrees Maria will have a capital gain tax from the transaction and the exact amount (give or take a few dollars) could be determined at date of trial if it did not qualify as an installment sale; therefore, the inequity … Perry, in addition to spousal and child support payments, must make payments on the promissory note and establish a $10,000 trust fund for the education of the minor child.

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.

Shapiro v. United California Bank

133 Cal. App. 3d 256 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 30, 1982

Darby, a qualified banking expert, who testified in substance that the signature card agreement executed by plaintiffs constituted the agreement between UCB and plaintiffs; that the signature card agreement incorporates the … While Darby’s testimony may have been sufficient to establish that UCB considered it an obligation of plaintiffs not to write NSF checks, it was not sufficient to establish plaintiffs’ implied promise not to write NSF checks

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.

Children's Hospital & Medical Center v. Bonta

118 Cal. Rptr. 2d 629 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 15, 2002

The court stated that its precedents “clearly establish that the degree of a differential burden or charge on interstate commerce ‘measures only the extent of the discrimination’ and ‘is of no relevance to the determination … The level of reimbursement DHS allows is clearly not responsive to market forces.

Victa v. Merle Norman Cosmetics, Inc.

19 Cal. App. 4th 454 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 13, 1993

Accordingly, they could not be read to establish blanket privity, as to such actions. … If however, the court in the first action would clearly not have had jurisdiction to entertain the omitted theory or ground (or, having jurisdiction, would clearly have declined to exercise it as a matter of discretion),

In re A.J.

California Court of Appeal · Sep 16, 2019

the wardship as satisfactory, this transcript does not establish the petition was dismissed and his record sealed. … This record clearly supports the lower court’s analysis.