Case law

Albanese v. Menounos

218 Cal. App. 4th 923 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 7, 2013

The cases cited by defendant are not helpful in establishing that she is in the „public eye.‟ See Sipple v. Foundation for Nat. … Jewett involved credit card solicitations that did not qualify for protection under the anti-SLAPP statute.

Kathryn S. v. Vincenzo C.

212 Cal. App. 4th 188 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 29, 2012

Appellant has a hereditary chronic condition called primary immune deficiency, for which he has to have an intravenous infusion every 21 days. … The Legislature further found that a “simple system allowing for establishment of voluntary paternity will result in a significant increase in the ease of establishing paternity, a significant increase in paternity establishment

Robert R. v. Gloria R.

88 Cal. App. 3d 11 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 4, 1979

II Robert R. next contends that even if the existence of fraud was not established in the proceeding to set aside the adoption, he was *16 entitled to rely on the fact that it was earlier established in the annulment proceedings … In other words, if an annulment clearly appears to be in the best interest of the welfare of the child, this alone would constitute proper grounds for annulment at the instance of either the natural or the foster parents.

Rivero v. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE

130 Cal. Rptr. 2d 81 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 28, 2003

Such conduct is clearly in furtherance of expression concerning a labor dispute, and thus protected by the U.S. Constitution. [Citation.]" … However, if the Union were correct, discussion of nearly every workplace dispute would qualify as a matter of public interest.

Bonelli v. State of California

71 Cal. App. 3d 459 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 30, 1977

The latter funds, held in trust for *466 them by the state, simply fail to qualify under the offset provision as “any amount owing... by any state agency.” … Appellants’ petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied October 13, 1977. 1 It was not established at trial that Bonelli did, in fact, accept bribes. Both actions proceeded, however, upon that assumption.

Martinez v. Public Employees' Retirement System

California Court of Appeal · Apr 4, 2019

In short, they do not claim Martinez qualifies for any of the exceptions identified by Haywood and Smith. … Existing law permits the legislative body of a local agency to establish a pension trust, as specified, for the benefit of its officers and employees and permits that legislative body to establish reciprocal retirement benefits

People v. Jardine

116 Cal. App. 3d 907 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 16, 1981

The law did not require Officer Armstrong to make the choice of giving the driver immunity in violating the traffic laws or stopping the car and possibly walking into the firing path of a sawed-off shotgun. (People v. … Pridgen’s testimony, though offered by the defense, clearly and unambiguously establishes that Rucker was an accomplice to the robbery, in that he knowingly aided Pridgen and Jardine to carry off the loot.

Waste Resource Technologies v. DEPT. OF PUB. HLT. OF CITY AND CTY. OF SAN FRANCISCO

23 Cal. App. 4th 299 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 16, 1994

Section 40059—as well as the entire scope of the Act— establishes the Legislature’s awareness that “ ‘substantial!] … so as to prohibit or unreasonably regulate the operation of, or the disposal, treatment, or recovery of resources from solid wastes” by a specified type of facility. 8 As the state’s sole city and county, San Francisco qualifies

Heiman v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

57 Cal. Rptr. 3d 56 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 13, 2007

Prior authority was clearly provided by the Agreement and the Association meeting. … Although the attendant had insufficient hours to qualify as an employee of the disabled person under section 3352, subdivision (h), the court concluded that *736 the state was a dual employer with supervision and the right

Ross v. Ragingwire Telecommunications, Inc.

33 Cal. Rptr. 3d 803 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 7, 2005

Plaintiff is a qualified individual with a disability as defined by the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.) … Accordingly, the Compassionate Use Act grants patients who use marijuana for medicinal purposes "a limited immunity from [criminal] prosecution, which not only allows a defense at trial, but also permits a motion to set aside

Palos Verdes Shores Mobile Estates, Ltd. v. City of Los Angeles

142 Cal. App. 3d 362 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 26, 1983

covered by general law as to clearly indicate that it has become exclusively a matter of state concern; (2) the subject matter has been partially covered by general law couched in such terms as to indicate clearly that a … There is also no basis for concluding that the legislation shows a legislative intent to make the subject of mobilehome parks immune from local legislation. As was said by the court in Gluck v.

People v. Adams

California Court of Appeal · Mar 3, 2016

Our review is governed by well established rules of statutory construction. Our Supreme Court examined these rules in Even Zohar Construction & Remodeling, Inc. v. … The simple kidnapping instructions were clearly delineated and, as noted, referred to by the trial court when instructing concerning kidnapping qualifying circumstance pursuant to CALCRIM No. 3179.

Volkswagen of America, Inc. v. Superior Court

43 Cal. Rptr. 3d 723 · California Court of Appeal · May 26, 2006

as “qualified settlement fund[s]” within the meaning of section 1.468B-1 et seq. of the Treasury Regulations. … I mean, if something in my mind is clearly inadmissible, then I think that the right to discovery, at least to the extent of everything—I know that there is a dichotomy in the law which seeks a balance, but I think in terms

Department of Mental Hygiene v. Kolts

247 Cal. App. 2d 154 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 12, 1966

We do not believe that it was the intention of the Legislature to overrule or ignore the provision of the Civil Code establishing the fundamental rights and duties of marriage, the provisions of the Probate Code establishing … 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

Epstein v. Vision Service Plan

California Court of Appeal · Oct 22, 2020

Second, it ruled the fact the step-one hearing process was neither binding nor immune from review, did not conclusively establish that it was not arbitration. (Id. at *3.) … But that said, there is no doubt VSP’s network provider agreement carries some degree of procedural unconscionability, given VSP’s overwhelming presence in the vision marketplace and the fact its provider agreement is clearly

People v. Dain

California Court of Appeal · Jan 31, 2024

This change in the interpretation of section 186.22(a) meant that defendant’s convictions, by themselves, were inconclusive as to whether they qualified as strikes. (Strike, at p. 150.) … (See Carmony, supra, 33 Cal.4th at pp. 376–377 [the burden is on the appellant to clearly establish the sentencing decision was irrational or arbitrary].)

Blasiar, Inc. v. Fireman's Fund Insurance

90 Cal. Rptr. 2d 374 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 25, 1999

The language of the exclusion clearly states that it applies only if there is no physical evidence to show what happened to the insured’s property. … It only establishes what property is on hand at a point in time, allowing a comparison to property on hand at other times and to records of property acquired and sold.

California Ass'n for Health Service at Home v. State Department of Health Services

56 Cal. Rptr. 3d 102 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 15, 2007

Unlike section 1983, which requires the violation of a private right, privilege, or immunity to confer standing, Code of Civil Procedure section 1085 confers a broad tight to issuance of a traditional writ to those who are … We conclude that plaintiffs have standing to enforce DHS’s duties under the state plan by mandamus to the extent such duties are clearly and presently compelled by the state plan and do not involve an exercise of discretion

People v. Guiamelon

205 Cal. App. 4th 383 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 24, 2012

A claim of conflict preemption was rejected in Qualified Patients Assn. v. … No basis for preemption has been established.

San Diego County Health & Human Services Agency v. Charlotte A.

239 Cal. App. 4th 208 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 17, 2015

The statutory scheme clearly allows a person who has an established familial relationship with a parent of the dependent child to qualify as an NREFM. … The intent of the Legislature to include a person with established familial ties to a parent as an NREFM is clearly expressed both in the plain language of section 362.7 as well as the statute's judicial and legislative