Case law

G.W. v. Coronado Unified School District CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · Sep 19, 2024

, and the qualified immunity doctrine; (2) requiring that students wear a mask consistent with public health orders does not violate constitutional rights; (3) there is no evidence any of defendants engaged in threats of … The court noted that G.W.’s conduct was “clearly disruptive of the orderly operation of the school[,]” and that the school took efforts to accommodate G.W. before resorting to suspension.

Webster v. State Board of Control

197 Cal. App. 3d 29 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 18, 1987

weight and should be followed by a court unless clearly erroneous. … We therefore need not determine whether the Board improperly found that Webster did not qualify as a good Samaritan. C. Webster’s claim to past, present, and future losses of income and medical expenses.

Threlkeld v. Ranger Ins. Co.

156 Cal. App. 3d 1 · California Court of Appeal · May 17, 1984

policy, we must apply the general principle that any doubt as to the policy's meaning must be resolved against the insurer, and any exception to the performance of the basic underlying insuring obligations must be stated clearly … The pilot involved was duly licensed and fully qualified in every respect, but he had inadvertently allowed his medical certificate to expire about 25 days prior to the accident.

Jansson v. Monten

140 Cal. App. 520 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 30, 1934

Monten, who was named in the will as executrix, became the duly appointed and qualified executrix thereof. … Monten and her father had existed for many years, are established facts.

People v. Ivester

235 Cal. App. 3d 328 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 17, 1991

The evidence contained in the preliminary hearing transcript clearly established that methamphetamine was being manufactured in Ivester’s residence. … We conclude the record establishes the latter fact. Ivester did not qualify his response to the court saying that he was merely a landlord or a helpful tenant.

Henderson v. Henderson

128 Cal. App. 397 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 27, 1932

Appellant relies upon her own testimony almost without corroboration to establish a parol transmutation of the Lingard ranch from separate to community property. … When interrogated as to who made the payments on these pieces appellant testified she did, but when confronted with entries in the check-books of deceased she qualified her statements by saying that perhaps Henderson paid

In re Noah S.

California Court of Appeal · Aug 3, 2021

Minor’s conduct clearly evidences intent 5 to use force to overcome the victim’s resistance. (See People v. Jones (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 867, 872.) … None of this was necessary to establish an intent to rob.

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.

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

People v. O'Moore

83 Cal. App. 2d 586 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 9, 1948

The trial judge was best qualified to determine the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to support those charges. … In that case the court further states the established rule that a reviewing court will not disturb an order granting a new trial “unless it clearly appears that he abused such broad discretion.”

Pennsylvania General Insurance v. American Safety Indemnity Co.

185 Cal. App. 4th 1515 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 3, 2010

The undisputed evidence establishes that Whitacre’s work was completed by June of 2001. . . . … minted 1999 language clearly stating the causal conduct must also occur during the policy period.

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.

Karlson v. City of Camarillo

100 Cal. App. 3d 789 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 8, 1980

review is Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 6 Section 65300.5 Having determined that the appropriate scope of review is under Code of Civil Procedure section 1085, we next determine whether that specified review is qualified … Here it clearly was. The record reflects that there may be some slight increase in air pollution.

People v. Muldrow

202 Cal. App. 3d 636 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 7, 1988

However, the court stated, “We would find merit in the argument... if such subsequent acts had a substantial relevancy to establish a character trait of dishonesty or untruthfulness.” (People v. … As shown above, we do not find that our case qualifies for such an exception because the court clearly exercised its discretion in the record. 4 Evidence Code section 788 provides that “For the purpose of attacking the credibility

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.”

City of Richmond v. Service Employees International Union

189 Cal. App. 4th 663 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 25, 2010

The public policy on this point is well defined and clearly expressed in state and federal law. (Gov. Code, § 12920; 42 U.S.C. § 2000e~2(a)(l); 29 C.ER. § 1604.11(a) (2010).) … But nothing in the arbitrator’s award or findings establishes a breach of duty toward the alleged victims.

Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. J. R.

95 Cal. App. 4th 793 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 28, 2002

He has visited regularly [and] clearly held himself out to be the father. . . . … is not to establish paternity.

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.

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.