Case law

Arcadia Development Co. v. City of Morgan Hill

169 Cal. App. 4th 253 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 16, 2008

If the plaintiff were barred from challenging the reenactments, “then the validity of all subsequent reenactments would be immune to judicial challenge or review.” (Ibid.) … Section 66499.37 9 establishes a 90-day period of limitations within which to challenge the application of a regulation to a specific piece of property. (Hensler v. City of Glendale, supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 23 .)

Moss v. Minor Properties, Inc.

262 Cal. App. 2d 847 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 11, 1968

Waiver, however, is a question of fact and not of law, hence the intention to commit a waiver must be clearly expressed. … Although the sequence of these events was not established, it is of no consequence.

People v. Bedolla

94 Cal. App. 3d 1 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 13, 1979

Thus, “[i]t is of no consequence that the evidence at trial might also establish guilt of another and lesser crime than that charged.” (Ibid. [original italics, fn. omitted].) … Appellant’s argument that four other offenses were “clearly made out by the evidence” is wholly irrelevant. The supposed included offenses are not contained within the elements of the crimes charged.

Schenley Industries, Inc. v. Munro

237 Cal. App. 2d 106 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 20, 1965

Subsection (m) qualifies subsections (k) and (l) by providing that a manufacturer, rectifier or wholesaler who proposes to file a quantity discount which would be presumptively unlawful may submit to the department such records … The foregoing constitutional power of the department, as contained in the first of the two sentences quoted above, is clearly limited by the proviso that it must be exercised “in accordance with the latos enacted by the Legislature

Oanh Thi Pham v. Allstate Insurance

206 Cal. App. 3d 1193 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 23, 1988

In our view a direct application of force, as by Car X striking Car B and forcing it to hit Car C, qualifies as physical contact within the meaning of the statute.” (Id. at p. 445-446.) … We also suggested that “If Car X had lost a wheel and the wheel had hit Car C, this would clearly be direct physical touching of Car C by a part of Car X.” (Id. at p. 444.)

People v. Sanders

203 Cal. App. 4th 839 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 21, 2012

unenforceable for any reason, the respondent shall be permitted to withdraw his admission to the petition and will be entitled to a trial on the most recently filed petition providing the respondent has not already been found to qualify … Appellant asserts that he clearly intended to make the agreement only if he could raise a due process challenge on appeal to the delays in his trial proceedings.

McKelvey v. Rodriquez

57 Cal. App. 2d 214 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 19, 1943

The complaint alleges that the plaintiffs (respondents) are the duly appointed, qualified and acting executors of the will and estate of Etta Goss McKelvey, deceased. … Furthermore, appellants clearly failed to establish adverse possession upon their part and that of their predecessor in interest.

Cal. Bldg. Industry Assn. v. State Water Resources

California Court of Appeal · Apr 20, 2015

engineer under the laws of this state who is experienced in sanitary engineering and who is qualified in the field of water quality, and one shall be qualified in the field of water quality. … That is clearly not the case. CBIA and Justice Richman misread the letter quoting the report.

Seghesio v. County of Napa

135 Cal. App. 3d 371 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 26, 1982

Chickering (1976) 18 Cal.3d 190, 196 [ 132 Cal.Rptr. 377 , 553 P.2d 537 ], the Cali *375 fornia Supreme Court held that the enactment of section 21080.5 “creates an alternative to the EIR requirement for qualified state agencies … Defendants are correct in asserting that subdivision (a) of the statute conditions the granting of an exemption from the EIR requirement upon certification establishing that a state regulatory program requires the functional

Verdugo Hills Hospital, Inc. v. Department of Health

88 Cal. App. 3d 957 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 30, 1979

Code of Civil Procedure, section 1094.5, states that the judicial inquiry thereunder extends to the question, among other questions, whether there was any prejudicial abuse of discretion and such abuse may be established … The economic loss at issue clearly falls within this definition. The trial court did not err in directing the issuance of a certificate of exemption.

Armstrong v. Kubo & Co.

88 Cal. App. 331 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 13, 1928

The law seems to be well settled that every bailee or person clothed with the exclusive right of possession has a temporary or qualified ownership in the property to the extent of enabling him to maintain actions in respect … These cases are sufficient to clearly establish the law in this state that one whose property has been stolen by another may waive the tort and sue and recover the value of the so wrongfully taken and conveyed.

People v. One 1937 Buick Coupe

89 Cal. App. 2d 556 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 6, 1949

Moreover, it is not enough to show that the consent or permission was limited or qualified and that the permittee exceeded the limitations of the permission. The owner parts with possession at his peril. (People v. … One 1941 Ford 8 Stake Truck, 26 Cal.2d 503, 507 [ 159 P.2d 641 ], said: “Clearly shown by the terms of section 11610 et seq. is a legislative policy that the vicious traffic in narcotics,' with its disastrous effect upon

San Diegans for Open Govt. v. City of San Diego

California Court of Appeal · Jan 15, 2019

We reject SDOG's attempt to establish the unusual circumstances exception for two reasons. … So guided, reason dictates that the full exercise of the power is permitted except as clearly and explicitly curtailed.

Perkins v. Robertson

140 Cal. App. 2d 536 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 5, 1956

Vernon County, 226 Wis. 602 [ 276 N.W. 359 ]); and the qualified independence allowed to both minors in this case seems to be about the same as that granted to the older “teen-agers” in the average American home today. … The answer is clearly “No.”

Sacramento County Deputy Sheriffs' Ass'n v. County of Sacramento

51 Cal. App. 4th 1468 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 31, 1996

A defendant may show entitlement to summary judgment either by showing one or more elements of each cause of action cannot be established, or by establishing an affirmative defense. (Ibid.) … immunity.

L.R. v. A.L.

205 Cal. App. 4th 455 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 24, 2012

In closing arguments, the parties disagreed on whether father qualified as a Kelsey S. father. … Reiterating that father was clearly a Kelsey S. father, the court nonetheless found him “incapable” of parenting minor.

People v. Connor

270 Cal. App. 2d 630 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 13, 1969

He says, “They alluded to defendant’s confession of April 6, 1966, among other things, and told me that the evidence, including the confession, clearly made the case a death penalty case.” … Based upon the foregoing evidence, all available to the *638 police without the admissions of appellant, one could conclude they establish a first degree murder.

People ex rel. Lockyer v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.

107 Cal. App. 4th 516 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 27, 2003

Moreover, similar to the situation in Phelps, “there is only one antecedent and the qualifying phrase therefore must attach to all of it.” (Phelps, at p. 457.) … As such, the language of the central clause of the MSA’s subsection III(c)(3)(E)(ii) clearly indicated it was “intended as a single phrase, or antecedent to the qualifying clause.

Shively v. Eureka Tellurium Gold Mining Co.

5 Cal. App. 236 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 19, 1907

The rule is stated clearly in the syllabus of Schnittger v. Old Home Cons. Min. … It is true, as suggested by appellants, that it is usually difficult to establish fraud clearly, and that positive and express proof is not required; but it must be remembered, also, that charges of this character are easily

Kataoka v. May Department Stores Co.

60 Cal. App. 2d 177 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 9, 1943

That doctrine is clearly not applicable in support of plaintiff’s case against defendant Goddard. … Here the evidence clearly establishes the immediate cause of the plaintiff’s accident.