Case law

Hoover v. Travelers Insurance

173 Cal. App. 2d 361 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 27, 1959

Thus, the above quoted language of the policy is clearly ambiguous and the rule of Continental Cas. Co. v. Phoenix Constr. … A group life policy conforming to all of the following conditions may be issued to the trustees of a fund established by one employer, or by two or more employers in the same industry, or by one or more labor unions, or by

Bos v. United States Rubber Co.

100 Cal. App. 2d 565 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 21, 1950

Neither the action of the Board of Directors in establishing this Pension Plan or any action hereafter taken by the Board of Directors or the Pension Committee shall be construed as giving any officer or employe or agent … But the second cause of action was clearly an attempt to substitute the alleged oral agreement for the written one, or to modify it.

Fig Garden Park No. 2 Ass'n v. Local Agency Formation Commission

162 Cal. App. 3d 336 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 30, 1984

.” (§ 35006.) 4 Section 35000 clearly expresses the legislative intent to promote orderly development of urban areas and logical formation and expansion of cities to assure that persons living in enclosures within a city … Accordingly, the trial court erred in concluding that the property did not qualify for annexation under section 35150, subdivision (f).

People v. Plesniarski

22 Cal. App. 3d 108 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 17, 1971

These are definitions long established by federal authorities, only a few of which we have cited, in determining the meaning of “color of law” which is the same as “color of authority” and which have never given any difficulty … The evidence clearly showed grounds for “assuming the possibility that an offense has been committed and the accused is guilty of it.” (Bompensiero v . Superior Court (1955) 44 Cal.2d 178, 183 [ 281 P.2d 250 ].)

Baldwin v. AAA Northern California, Nevada & Utah Insurance Exchange

1 Cal. App. 5th 545 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 13, 2016

There is precedent indicating that an insurance policy “clearly establish[ing] a financial incentive to maintain a hazardous condition injurious to the public may well be contrary to public policy.” (Rosen v. … The plaintiff must clearly and specifically set forth . . . factual allegations that sufficiently state all required elements of that cause of action. [Citations.]

Solano County Department of Social Services v. Ron B.

191 Cal. App. 3d 682 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 29, 1987

Kelly-Frye is clearly applicable where evidence is produced by a machine such as a lie detector, or by a physical testing procedure such as blood typing. … Our ruling is based solely on the need for further proceedings to establish the admissibility of the challenged testimony.

People v. Wimberly

5 Cal. App. 4th 773 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 20, 1992

To establish a prima facie case under People v. … The record thus clearly establishes that the police made no express or implied threat and that any desire of appellant’s to aid his mother by confessing “was entirely self-motivated.” (Ibid.)

Bernardi v. City Council of L.A.

54 Cal. App. 4th 426 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 19, 1997

However, the new ordinance also stated “[t]he limitations established in . . . this Ordinance are subject to applicable limitations previously established for the . . . … City and County of San Francisco (1977) 72 Cal.App.3d 164 [ 140 Cal.Rptr. 73 ], appellants contend even validating judgments are not immune from modification upon a showing of changed circumstances.

Gabric v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes

73 Cal. App. 3d 183 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 7, 1977

But the record clearly discloses that the City ignored its own ordinances and misapplied the law. … Section 5 thereof provides that projects listed in certain classes including homes are all qualified by the consideration of location.

Wiltshire v. Superior Court

172 Cal. App. 3d 296 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 19, 1985

Rebuffed in his efforts to block approval by public agencies of construction of a solid waste disposal facility in the City of San Marcos, Jonathan Wiltshire successfully qualified an initiative measure to require voter approval … That price is clearly prohibited by the state statute (§ 65909).

Bowman v. Bowman

171 Cal. App. 3d 148 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 13, 1985

The plans were established on July 1, 1955, and each provides benefits *152 to beneficiaries designated by the employee. … Benson did not qualify. The court stated “that upon a division of the community estate she could . . . have participated therein.

Marr. of Greenway

California Court of Appeal · Jun 26, 2013

Lyle stated his recovery had been hampered because his immune system was weakened by the chemotherapy treatments he received to treat lymphoma. … Lyle‟s sequence of reasoned responses, regarding one topic, clearly suggests his thinking is organized and logical.

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.

Hibernia Securities Co. v. Morey

23 Cal. App. 2d 482 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 17, 1937

given to the Oregon statute of 1905 as amended, and in particular whether the forfeiture of the corporate franchise of the Monarch Company by proclamation of the governor for nonpayment of its license taxes rendered it immune … Eegardless of whatever the rule may have formerly been, it is now a well-established doctrine that the property of a corporation, including rights of contract and choses in action, upon dissolution of the corporation, become

P .v. Avina CA4/3

California Court of Appeal · Feb 7, 2014

(b)) to “establish and maintain a voluntary program for the issuance of identification cards to qualified patients . . . .” (§ 11362.71, subd. (a)(1).) Subject to the requirements of the MMP (§ 11362.765, subd. … (a)), the Legislature provided immunity to “[a]ny individual who provides assistance to a qualified patient or . . . designated primary caregiver” (§ 11362.765, subd.

Reiter v. Anderson

87 Cal. App. 642 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 19, 1927

In discussing the same question as to the legal relationship created by the form of contract such as the parties here entered into, Professor Mechem says: “A qualified form of ‘agency’ which has grown up in modern times is … For aught said documents show the goods ordered by defendants were to be paid for in sixty days, whether sold by defendants or not, clearly implying a sale and credit.

People v. Brown

California Court of Appeal · Jul 31, 2020

But in doing so, he ignores the opinion that speaks most clearly to the issue. People v. … The gang enhancements added to his sentence were unauthorized under clearly established law and must be stricken. Brown was found guilty in count 1 of attempted murder (§§ 187, subd.

Brown v. Fair Political Practices Commission

100 Cal. Rptr. 2d 606 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 12, 2000

Measure X established the mayor as head of the executive branch of city government. … We stated: “Clearly under the charter, the mayor has a significant and unique function in the city’s lawmaking process.

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.

King v. Kaplan

94 Cal. App. 2d 697 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 18, 1949

Clearly the foregoing evidence would have supported a finding that defendant was a severe diabetic and the trial court's ruling was erroneous. … At that time, the Legislature established the rule that the guest must prove the defendant host guilty of gross negligence before being allowed a recovery.