Case law

Garcia v. Garcia

67 Cal. App. 4th 693 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 30, 1998

This is an appeal from a judgment on appellant’s order to show cause (OSC) to establish, and direct payment of, child and spousal support arrearages. … Under Aetna, immunity *699 from suit would be comparable to a vested right. Indeed, in Morris v. Pacific Electric Ry.

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.

Juge v. County of Sacramento

12 Cal. App. 4th 59 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 5, 1993

Defendant moved for summary judgment on two grounds: its design of the bikeway is protected by design immunity (Gov. Code, § 830.6 1 ) and is not *64 subject to the statutory “trap exception” (Gov. … his response to defendant’s separate statement of undisputed facts, plaintiff unsuccessfully objected to the introduction of his deposition testimony “on the grounds that [he] had no speedometer on his bike and he is not qualified

Los Angeles Police Protective League v. City of Los Angeles

166 Cal. App. 3d 55 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 26, 1985

The employee relations ordinance quite clearly provides for fact finding. The city had the power at the time of adoption of the ordinance to agree to binding fact finding. (Taylor v. Crane, supra, at p. 451 .) … Would not an ERB finding of wrongful reduction of wages suffice to establish a ground for recovery by deprived employees, as individuals or as a class, in court?

In Re Marriage of Harrison

179 Cal. App. 3d 1216 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 18, 1986

The evidence presented during the bifurcated proceedings which occurred in 1980-1981 established Eugene had four option agreements to purchase Loral stock. … He mailed his check to Katherine in a letter clearly identifying what the payment represented.

Scott v. Flanagan

14 Cal. App. 2d 105 · California Court of Appeal · May 15, 1936

. *109 Respondents established by testimony of Flanagan and by M. P. … Also appellants have failed to establish that Berta Rideout was either driving the ear or that she had direction or control over its operation. Mr.

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.

Bekins Moving & Storage Co. v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

103 Cal. App. 3d 675 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 24, 1980

Cloward, operations supervisor for Bekins in Oakland, was qualified as a safety expert. Mr. Cloward had worked in the freight hauling and moving business for 10 years. … Labor Code section 5814 “...clearly contemplates that there must be a reasonable cause for delay in making disability payments. Once delay is shown, a satisfactory explanation must be made by the employer.”

Myers v. Patterson

196 Cal. App. 3d 130 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 13, 1987

The answer is clearly, “No.” We conclude, in fact, that just the opposite is true, that he had a duty to reject the petition. … The informational purpose is clearly evident. The notice also conveys information beyond a statement of reasons.

County of San Diego v. Sierra

217 Cal. App. 3d 126 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 16, 1990

Lemon, supra, 205 Cal.App.3d at p. 689 .) 7 As this court recently noted in In re Marriage of Regnery (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1367, 1372 , footnote 3 [ 263 Cal.Rptr. 243 ], “Clearly the intent of the Legislature is not to allow … This is further evidence the Legislature did not contemplate circumstances not listed in section 4725 to qualify for a hardship deduction.

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.

Estate of Oravetz

204 Cal. App. 2d 717 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 18, 1962

Nelson was appointed as special administrator with general powers by reason of the contest and was later appointed administrator of the estate upon the nomination by Oravetz and is now the duly qualified and acting administrator … The court stated (p. 425) : “The law is established in California by a long line of decisions that before a document may be admitted to probate as the last will and testament of decedent, in addition to meeting all other

Rhyne v. Municipal Court

113 Cal. App. 3d 807 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 22, 1980

This legislative act penetrates only a peripheral area of the judicial wall of immunity from suit. It is no grand leap over that barrier. … It is a long established general rule that, a judge is not to be held answerable for acts performed in his judicial capacity. (City of Santa Clara v.

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.

Aitken v. Roche

48 Cal. App. 753 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 29, 1920

These provisions of the charter would seem to bring the case clearly within the reasoning of Mr. Justice Miller in United States v. Tyler . … Under this provision, the legislative intent was clearly expressed not to increase the pensions provided prior to the amendment for members of the fire department.

Los Angeles Times v. Superior Court

7 Cal. Rptr. 3d 524 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 12, 2003

Clearly there is no presumptive right of public access to grand jury proceedings in California. 4. Status of “ancillary grand jury proceedings” in the superior court. … “A proceeding in the district court to quash a subpoena, or to compel testimony, or to immunize a witness would, it seems to us, almost invariably reveal matters occurring before the grand jury, and thus may properly be closed

People v. Pace

73 Cal. App. 548 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 10, 1925

First: That it violates the guaranties contained in that portion of the fourteenth amendment to the federal constitution which reads as follows: “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities … On the contrary, it is well established that laws which reasonably regulate the mode of disposing of property do not take away the owner’s right of disposition.”

Black v. County of Los Angeles

12 Cal. App. 3d 670 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 4, 1970

“Although the statutes refer, as a requirement for relief, to ‘mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect,’ only ‘neglect’ is qualified by the adjective ‘excusable.’ … Melcher, 270 Cal.App.2d 598 [ 76 Cal.Rptr. 80 ], the attorney’s declaration stated that he had not been advised of sufficient facts by his client within 100 days to fully and clearly establish that defendant was state employed

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