Case law

In Re Marriage of Gram

25 Cal. App. 4th 859 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 7, 1994

The record on appeal reveals the particulars only of the enhanced early retirement option but the names of the others suggest their makeup: the newspapers established enhanced retirement, enhanced early retirement and voluntary … Each of these plans was clearly designed to deal with the needs of employees of differing ages, years of service and life expectations.

Noe v. Superior Court

237 Cal. App. 4th 316 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 1, 2015

Section 226.8 was clearly intended to address the “conditions of employment.” … Thus, section 218 does not establish a private right of action to enforce it.14 14 Plaintiffs also contend that the Legislature’s intent to establish a private right of action is demonstrated by a paragraph in the

Brown v. Stewart

129 Cal. App. 3d 331 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 26, 1982

To qualify for such financial assistance, the state must qualify by compliance with requirements of the federal law. … Clearly, the statute permits a defendant to introduce evidence of a benefit payable to a plaintiff pursuant to a contract.

Silo v. CHW Medical Foundation

103 Cal. Rptr. 2d 825 · California Court of Appeal · May 16, 2001

The exemption renders qualified religious entities exempt from FEHA in its entirety. … Applying the Stevenson test, the court found the policy clearly delineated in FEHA, inuring to the public benefit and well established. (Id. at pp. 1159-1160.)

Steinman v. Scandinavian Faith Mission

35 Cal. App. 2d 95 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 11, 1939

Testator died on November 13, 1937, the executor qualified and the will was duly admitted to probate on December 3, 1937. … It clearly appears from the record herein that Mrs.

People v. Dorsey

43 Cal. App. 3d 953 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 16, 1974

In these cases, the mode and time of preparation of the records clearly would be relevant to their basic trustworthiness and, hence, their admissibility. … not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule ... if: “(a) The writing was made in the regular course of a business; “(b) The writing was made at or near the time of the act, condition, or event; “(c) The custodian or other qualified

Jordan v. Allstate Insurance

11 Cal. Rptr. 3d 169 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 18, 2004

The burden is on the insured to establish that the claim is within the basic scope of coverage and on the insurer to establish that the claim is specifically excluded. [Citation.]” (MacKinnon v. Truck Ins. … This language clearly did not limit coverage to actual collapse but necessarily embraced imminent collapse.

Mazuran v. Stefanich

95 Cal. App. 327 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 6, 1928

“When the original fraud is clearly established by circumstances not liable to doubt, a confirmation of such a transaction is so inconsistent with justice, so unnatural, so liable to be connected with fraud, that it ought … The testimony of Stefanich that he “saw” the contract again in July does not establish that he read it then.

Ilczyszyn v. Southwest Airlines CA1/1

California Court of Appeal · Jun 8, 2022

In doing so, as the United States Supreme Court later observed, the court appeared to assume that “even true statements do not qualify for ATSA immunity if they are made recklessly.” … In their view, Congress intended “to limit the immunity to only that civil liability arising from a qualifying voluntary disclosure,” rather than providing a “blanket immunity” for all conduct occurring after such a disclosure

People v. Demoray

5 Cal. App. 3d 127 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 6, 1970

It was then stipulated that a qualified handwriting expert would testify that he had compared the handwriting on the two checks with that on the 1966 exemplar and that all three documents were written by the same person. … Once that is established — as was plainly done here — the trial judge must give opportunity, however closely confined, to the accused to prove that a substantial portion of the case against him was a fruit of the poisonous

Schmier v. Supreme Court

96 Cal. App. 4th 873 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 4, 2002

Leiserson II also acknowledged that “if that opinion is published because it satisfies the criteria for publication under rule 976 et seq. . . . , such status is also probative of whether the decision clearly vindicates a … Contrary to appellant’s assertion, Schmier I did not establish new law.

People v. Panozo

California Court of Appeal · Jan 8, 2021

It also found Ferguson failed to establish that he committed the offenses because of service-related PTSD. (Ibid.) … Barber (2020) 55 Cal.App.5th 787, 814 [“When a court is unaware of its discretion, the remedy is to remand for resentencing unless the record clearly indicates that the trial court would have reached the same conclusion if

People v. Main

75 Cal. App. 471 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 8, 1925

We are accustomed, in criminal cases, to regard the presumption of innocence as universally placing the burden of proof upon the People to establish every essential element of the offense charged, beyond a reasonable doubt … It is plain that the state' could not qualify as an estoppel asserter, based upon any claim of its own against the defendant; the representations were not made to it, nor has it parted with anything or in any way changed

Techno Lite v. EMCOD

California Court of Appeal · Jan 21, 2020

“Conversely, the mere act of disclosing his activities cannot immunize the officer from liability where his conduct in other respects amounts to a breach of duty. … It should be even more obvious that no firmly established principle of public policy authorizes an employee to become his employer’s competitor while still employed.

Estate of Adams

164 Cal. App. 2d 698 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 30, 1958

It qualified and the transfer of the residuary estate was to such trustee. … It does not establish ipso facto a property right in the excess which would pass as a chose in action to the representative of a deceased member of the favored class.

Gibson v. Hercules Manufacturing & Sales Co.

80 Cal. App. 689 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 18, 1927

This analysis, we think, *702 clearly establishes that the complaint was subject to the special demurrers interposed by the defendants. … Jur., page 777, the distinction is clearly drawn by the text-writer as to when loss of profits may be allowed.

LITON GEN. ENG'G CON., INC. v. United Pac. Ins.

16 Cal. App. 4th 577 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 11, 1993

I. (1) Under the principle of sovereign immunity, mechanics' liens may not be asserted on government projects. (Cal. Mechanics' Liens and Other Remedies (Cont.Ed.Bar 2d ed. 1988) § 3.1, p. 118.) … As earlier indicated, Liton was not permitted to establish UPI's liability on the bond without first completing arbitration.

Conservatorship of S.A.

California Court of Appeal · Jul 19, 2018

(Conservatorship of Deidre B. (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1306, 1312 [“The reestablishment hearing is conducted according to the same rules that govern the initial establishment of a conservatorship”].) … But the trial court considered these arguments, reviewed the records, and found the PHF records were “clearly the reports of persons and staff, licensed psychiatric technicians, . . . who are reporting [S.A.’s] observed conduct

Aalgaard v. Merchants National Bank, Inc.

224 Cal. App. 3d 674 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 10, 1990

The question of whether the manager’s privilege is absolute (and thus requiring the instant individual defendants to show only that they occupied such a position with defendant Bank) or qualified (requiring them to establish … With this as their purpose, the privilege remains intact even if it is merely qualified and not absolute.

Kennard v. Glick

183 Cal. App. 2d 246 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 28, 1960

They are clearly distinguishable upon the facts. Cases dealing with actions for conversion (e.g., French v. Robbins, 172 Cal. 670, 679 [ 158 P. 188 ]) likewise are not controlling here. … Whether he was qualified was a question for the trial court which will not be disturbed in the absence of an abuse of discretion. (People v. Clark, 117 Cal.App.2d 134, 143 [ 255 P.2d 79 ].)