Case law

Iverson v. Atlas Pacific Engineering

143 Cal. App. 3d 219 · California Court of Appeal · May 24, 1983

It is clearly barred by Labor Code sections 3600 and 3601. Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to the Labor Code. … to be one through whom the employer may be charged under Section 4553; (2) such act of such other employee shall be established to have been the proximate cause of the injury or death; and (3) such act is established to

People v. Ayon CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · Jul 29, 2015

Our high court noted that a potential test for the granting of judicial immunity would require: "(1) ' "the proffered testimony [is] clearly exculpatory; [(2)] the testimony [is] essential; and [(3)] there [is] no strong … Smith (3d Cir. 1980) 615 F.2d 964, to establish federal authority for a judicial grant of immunity, we note that this case was recently overruled. (See United States v.

Darling v. Caterpillar Tractor Co.

171 Cal. App. 2d 713 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 6, 1959

It was established that the hinge gave way because of a failure of the weld connecting it to the inspection cover and the deck plate. … It evades the fact that the asserted defect in design relied upon by plaintiff to establish design negligence consisted of the inadequacy of the deck plate lip.

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.

Mixon v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.

207 Cal. App. 4th 124 · California Court of Appeal · May 29, 2012

A plaintiff’s allegations, and ultimately the evidence, must establish a physical deficiency in the property itself. [Citations.] … The State also moved for summary judgment based on design immunity. (Gov. Code, § 830.6.) The trial court did not reach that issue and neither do we.

Glynn v. Super. Ct.

California Court of Appeal · Nov 13, 2019

Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 952, 976 [the plain language of Government Code 8 section 12940(a) “clearly states that an employer is not liable for discharging a person … “Although an employee need not formally file a charge in order to qualify as being engaged in protected opposing 9 activity, such activity must oppose activity the employee reasonably

People v. Harris

California Court of Appeal · Sep 6, 2017

offense" under four circumstances: (1) following arrest, no accusatory pleading has been filed charging the person with a qualifying offense or the qualifying charges have been dismissed prior to adjudication; (2) the qualifying … "With regard to any privacy interest in identifying information, it is established that individuals in lawful custody cannot claim privacy in their identification." (Robinson, supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 1121.)

John Russo Industrial Sheetmetal, Inc. v. City of L.A. Dept. of Airports Case Details

California Court of Appeal · Nov 26, 2018

government entities but penalizes clearly frivolous claims … [T]he presence of reasonable allegations in a suit does not immunize the plaintiff against paying for the fees that his frivolous claims imposed. [¶] . . .

Ass'n of Graduate Student Employees v. Public Employment Relations Board

6 Cal. App. 4th 1133 · California Court of Appeal · May 22, 1992

To qualify to practice medicine in California, these individuals (house-staff) must participate in an approved residency program. … But the test contradicts the test established by Regents.

Coastside Fishing Club v. California Fish & Game Commission

215 Cal. App. 4th 397 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 15, 2013

The Legislature declared that "California's marine protected areas (MPAs) were established on a piecemeal basis rather than according to a coherent plan and sound scientific guidelines.[1] Many of these MPAs lack clearly … Thus, the marine ecological reserves that former Fish and Game Code section 1580 authorized the DFG and the Commission to establish qualify as MPAs within the meaning of the MLPA because their purpose was to protect and

Cal. Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. City of West Hollywood

78 Cal. Rptr. 2d 591 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 29, 1998

The record here clearly shows that none of these possible “indicia of intent” establishes a legislative intention to preempt in this case. … There has been no serious attempt to establish that this test establishes an implied preemption in this case. (Cf. Suter v.

People v. Gragg

216 Cal. App. 3d 32 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 29, 1989

Solorzano testified at the trial under grant of derivative use immunity. … In this case the trial court clearly and expressly stated the hospital incident count of which Gragg was acquitted would play no part whatsoever in the sentencing choices.

Gridley v. Gridley

166 Cal. App. 4th 1562 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 23, 2008

With this fact established, we turn to the issues raised by the appeals and writ petition. B. … Even respondents’ counsel acknowledged at oral argument before this court that Justice Low’s mling was troublesome. 7 In light of the potential problems that could result from two trials involving the same parties and clearly

Hennelly v. Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'n

102 Cal. App. 2d 754 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 8, 1951

The evidence available to him may serve only to establish the existence of certain primary facts that are logically’Connected with the material facts. … Clearly, the innocent purchaser did not know and could not foresee that plaintiff, -in July, 1948,- would assert that there had been no delivery of the deed from plaintiff to her mother. (Safeway Stores, Inc., v.

People v. Johnny R.

33 Cal. App. 4th 1579 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 12, 1995

Clearly, the Fifth Amendment ban against double jeopardy applies to juvenile delinquency proceedings. (Richard M. v. Superior Court (1971) 4 Cal.3d 370, 375 [ 93 Cal.Rptr. 752 , 482 P.2d 664 ].) … Insisting that he be informed in the accusatory pleading of the charges against him, on the other hand, fully satisfies a well established fundamental of due process.” (Id. at p. 370.)

Young v. County of Marin

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

“It is clearly established that a State may not discharge an employee on a basis that infringes that employee’s constitutionally protected interest in freedom of speech. [Citation.]” (Rankin v. … 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 from constitutionally created claims.

Lackner v. North

135 Cal. App. 4th 1188 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 24, 2006

Additionally, the court found Bender, Chico, and Oroville were immune from liability (Gov. … This request clearly falls within the purpose of the 75-day requirement.

Russi v. Superior Court

33 Cal. App. 3d 160 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 29, 1973

The word “property” clearly covers her lease or rental of her apartment. Her right to the occupancy of the apartment is a property right. … To hold that defendant could assert that his wife’s constitutional rights had been violated would be to hold that defendant can immunize his residence from the parole officer’s scrutiny by living with someone else, and thus

California State Psychological Ass'n v. County of San Diego

148 Cal. App. 3d 849 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 21, 1983

The pleadings allege: CSPA is a nonprofit corporation whose members include psychologists qualified under California law to provide psychological services within the San Diego County Mental Health Services (MHS) program. … Clearly, neither hiring nor referral practices are mandated under Welfare and Institutions Code sections 5751 or 5751.3.

Bergeron v. Dessert Hospital Corp.

221 Cal. App. 3d 146 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 12, 1990

This interest is clearly fundamental. . . .” (Id., at p. 823.) Here, it is undisputed that petitioner’s right to “use” the roster, i.e., to participate thereon, is directly related to the pursuit of his livelihood. … However, although not every responsibility establishes an entitlement, when the responsibility is directly related to the pursuit of a livelihood, then, under Anton , an entitlement is established therefrom.