Case law

STATE EX REL. DOCKSTADER v. Hamby

75 Cal. Rptr. 3d 567 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 25, 2008

Code, § 17070.10 et seq.), which permits school districts to submit applications for new facilities based on need and following criteria established by the State Allocation Board. … In the context of a sovereign immunity case, the United States Supreme Court in Will v.

Slivkoff v. Bd. of Trs. of Cal. State Univ. & Colls.

69 Cal. App. 3d 394 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 27, 1977

The context of Government Code section 19143 clearly requires that the word “employee” as therein used apply to both exempt and civil service employees. … The rules thus authorized clearly *404 are rules “pursuant” 3 to law. “[0]ther applicable provisions of law” patently include the provisions of the Government Code.

Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota v. B.C.B.U.

49 Cal. Rptr. 3d 324 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 27, 2006

It is only the assignee who, in effect, qualifies as a holder in due course who enjoys the benefits of section 9403. Those who do not have recourse only to section 10407. … That was clearly right.

De Weese v. Unick

102 Cal. App. 3d 100 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 13, 1980

Clearly this statute was conceived to aid in proceedings wherein the issue of paternity had not yet been resolved and incorporated in a final judgment. … The parties cannot claim their controversy has not been litigated because on October 29, 1974, a final judgment was rendered, establishing paternity in the appellant, allowing for reasonable visitation rights and assigning

Feehan v. Super. Ct.

California Court of Appeal · Sep 13, 2024

Legal parenthood can be established in a number of different ways. … principles of law unless such intention is made clearly to appear either by express declaration or by necessary implication.”

Cohen v. NuVasive, Inc.

164 Cal. App. 4th 868 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 9, 2008

A departure from this fundamental principle is justified only if public policy clearly supports such an exception. ( Merrill v. Navegar, Inc., supra, 26 Cal.4th at pp. 501-502; Rowland, supra, at p. 112 .) … The court overruled the demurrer by Regents of the University of California to all counts based on governmental immunity and its demurrer to the count for intentional infliction of emotional distress, and sustained without

Khanna v. Microdata Corp.

170 Cal. App. 3d 250 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 20, 1985

In a series of cases arising out of a variety of factual settings in which a discharge clearly violated an express statutory objective or undermined a firmly established principle of public policy, courts have recognized … The trial court accepted the instruction, but qualified it by adding at the end “however, such termination may not be done in bad faith.”

O'HARA v. Storer Communications, Inc.

231 Cal. App. 3d 1101 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 27, 1991

Thus is posed a question never clearly decided by any court in California. … Here, McDaniel’s decision not to hire O’Hara clearly satisfied this requirement of the Restatement.

Dominguez v. Washington Mutual Bank

168 Cal. App. 4th 714 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 21, 2008

STANDARD OF REVIEW Summary judgment is granted when a moving party establishes the right to the entry of judgment as a matter of law. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c).) … This clearly raises an evidentiary conflict that should have precluded the summary judgment.

Harding v. Collazo

177 Cal. App. 3d 1044 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 28, 1986

The burden is on the party complaining to establish an abuse of discretion. (Tandy Corp. v. Superior Court (1982) 129 Cal.App.3d 734, 741 [ 181 Cal.Rptr. 319 ].) … In the case at bench we have found no abuse of discretion by the trial court and plaintiff has established none. 2.

People v. Pettaway

206 Cal. App. 3d 1312 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 29, 1988

Several California cases clearly demonstrate the adjunctive nature of an enhancement. … Clearly, Bullington and Rumsey are inapposite to White and the case before us.

DeLeon v. Verizon Wireless, LLC

207 Cal. App. 4th 800 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 10, 2012

DeLeon opposed the motion, arguing that a triable issue of fact existed as to whether the commission payments he received qualified as “advances.” … The conditions, however, must be clearly expressed and generally set forth in writing.

Baumgardner v. Yusuf

51 Cal. Rptr. 3d 277 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 21, 2006

Unlike Ybarra , here the potential tortfeasor was clearly identifiable. … Here, the evidence clearly established Dr.

American Federation of State etc. Employees v. City of L.A.

California Court of Appeal · Mar 27, 2025

“Membership shall entitle the system member to all benefits for retirement, disability and death for which he or she would qualify based upon his or her total service in both the LACERS and the WPERP.” … the benefit and the circumstances of its enactment clearly evince a legislative intent to create contractual rights,” and (2) when courts have determined certain benefits (primarily pension rights) are vested rights “by

People v. Nathaniel C.

228 Cal. App. 3d 990 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 22, 1991

The members of the Family and their supporters quite clearly formed a plan to hunt down and assault B-Wingers to retaliate for the stabbing of a Family member. … Here, the legislative intent is clearly and expressly stated.

Olsen v. Harbison

191 Cal. App. 4th 325 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 1, 2010

“Quantum meruit refers to the well-established principle that ‘the law implies a promise to pay for services performed under circumstances disclosing that they were not gratuitously rendered.’ [Citation.] … Where, as here, damages separate from the litigation are demonstrated, the alleged wrongful, potentially criminal activity, is not immunized.” (Id. at p. 100.)

Cooke v. Cooke

65 Cal. App. 2d 260 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 26, 1944

to abridge the privileges and immunities of the citizen. … This is thoroughly established by the cases already cited.

Arteaga v. Superior Court

233 Cal. App. 4th 851 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 27, 2015

Grand Jury Testimony: Jesus Cervantes Jesus Cervantes (also known as Jesse Cervantes) testified under an immunity agreement. … The court specified that while its “holding may allow admission at the preliminary examination of qualified officer testimony regarding an accomplice‟s confession,” it was left to “the magistrate in each case to decide the

O'Brien v. O'Brien

21 Cal. App. 620 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 4, 1913

The burden of proof to thus vary the terms of the instrument is upon the party who claims contrary thereto, and he must establish his allegations by a preponderance of evidence. … It was shown that this witness, at the time he qualified as executor of the estate of his deceased brother, testified that this particular property was the property of the estate.

Hughes v. Alexis

170 Cal. App. 3d 800 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 30, 1985

sufficient alone to support a finding, noting that evidence which is “admissible” is not necessarily “sufficient” to support a finding absent other competent evidence. (33 Cal.3d at p. 538 & fn. 3.) 9 “Unlike statutes that clearly … under section 13353 would qualify under Evidence Code section 1271 as a business record or under Evidence Code section 1280 as an official record.