Case law

Magan Medical Clinic v. Cal. State Bd. of Med. Examiners

249 Cal. App. 2d 124 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 3, 1967

A statute is presumed to be constitutional and the burden in this ease is on the plaintiffs to establish clearly that it is unconstitutional. … Anyone else could own such establishments. . . .’)

Fletcher v. A. J. Industries, Inc.

266 Cal. App. 2d 313 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 2, 1968

[e]; see Ballantine, California’s 1943 Statute as to Directors’ Litigation Expenses: An Exclusive Remedy for Indemnification of Directors, Officers and Employees (1943) 31 Cal.L.Rev. 515, 517), and no decisions qualify its … This is clearly true where the litigation has gone to trial and judgment. (See New Capital for Small Businesses, Inc. v. Saunders (1963) 215 Cal.App.2d 728, 733 [ 30 Cal.Rptr. 563 ].)

City of San Diego v. Rider

47 Cal. App. 4th 1473 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 30, 1996

The court explained: “As to the validity of the lease, the plaintiffs have established that the lease falls within the well-established contingent-payment exception to the constitutional limitation on indebtedness of a city … Proposition 13 established a one percent limit on ad valorem taxes on real property (Cal. Const., art.

Perales v. Department of Human Resources Development

32 Cal. App. 3d 332 · California Court of Appeal · May 14, 1973

During the 1969 canning season appellant was employed by Hunt- *335 Wesson Foods, Inc., where he earned sufficient wages to qualify for unemployment insurance benefits. … We further note that respondents and all other agencies charged with enforcement of the Unemployment Insurance Code for many years consistently have construed the section 1256 presumption to be a rebuttable one. 7 Unless clearly

In re Marcus C., Jr.

California Court of Appeal · Feb 21, 2017

She reported that the child was up to date with his immunizations. Mother said that Father smokes marijuana but not in the child‟s presence. … These facts were clearly within the personal knowledge of each of the parents as they were facts concerning the parents‟ own actions and failures to act.

Verga v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

70 Cal. Rptr. 3d 871 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 25, 2008

Even so, the WCAB’s statutory interpretation is entitled to great weight unless it is clearly erroneous. (Boehm & Associates v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 513, 515-516 [ 90 Cal.Rptr.2d 486 ].) … And psychiatric injuries arising from nondiscriminatory, good faith personnel decisions do not qualify for compensation. (§ 3208.3, subd. (h).)

People v. Claxton

129 Cal. App. 3d 638 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 2, 1982

It is also an obvious denial of due process to offer immunity to a witness on the condition that the witness’ testimony produce a conviction. (People v. … Harrington’s remarks to the police qualify as a declaration against penal interest.

Elms v. Elms

72 Cal. App. 2d 508 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 11, 1946

On May 31 counsel filed a stipulation qualifying the action for immediate trial and it was set for June 7 at 9:30 a. m. … Lawrence, 11 Cal.App. 231, 233 [ 104 P.2d 584 ].) *520 In the light of the foregoing authorities the order before us is clearly an abuse of discretion.

People v. Tatum

73 Cal. Rptr. 3d 718 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 24, 2008

Consequently, the trial court ruled, the District Attorney needed to establish “good cause” for the delay. … (a), (b))—is a qualifying offense under the MDO Act, 12 a question that a psychiatrist (unlike a trial court) is ill-suited to resolve.

Kaminsky v. City of Los Angeles CA2/5

California Court of Appeal · Dec 23, 2022

While this can prevent the issue of immunity from being determined at the demurrer stage, that is not the case here where the allegations of the complaint suffice to establish the acts in question were, in fact, discretionary … The plaintiff must clearly and specifically set forth the “applicable substantive law” [citation] and the legal basis for amendment, i.e., the elements of the cause of action and authority for it.

City of Dublin v. County of Alameda

14 Cal. App. 4th 264 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 18, 1993

Preemption by implication occurs if the subject is so completely covered by general law that it clearly has become exclusively a matter of state concern. … But that fact does not establish that the charge is a special tax.

People v. Lopez

California Court of Appeal · Mar 13, 2020

as clearly shown.” … Since the felonious conduct required by section 182.5 was conclusively established, the error in failing to instruct on potential liability for merely benefitting from such conduct was clearly harmless.

Willard v. Hagemeister

121 Cal. App. 3d 406 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 9, 1981

The Supreme Court reiterated this well-established rule in Landeros v. … Because respondents are specially qualified fiduciaries, Willard’s reliance upon their opinions would be justifiable. (4 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (8th ed. 1974) Torts, §§ 448-450, pp. 2712-2715.)

O'Brien v. AMBS Diagnostics, LLC

California Court of Appeal · Aug 8, 2019

“[T]he shielding and hiding of assets from creditors is clearly not a ‘use for retirement purposes.’” … However, O’Brien’s decision not to withdraw the funds from the 401(k) plan does not “conclusively establish[] a primary retirement purpose” for the plan.

Harley-Davidson, Inc. v. Franchise Tax Board

237 Cal. App. 4th 193 · California Court of Appeal · May 28, 2015

(Fulton, supra, 516 U.S. at p. 333, fn. 3; Oregon Waste, supra, 511 U.S. at p. 100, fn. 4 [recognizing that United States Supreme Court precedents "clearly establish that the degree of a differential burden or charge on interstate … the taxpayer used the gain to purchase stock in another qualified small business.

BBBB Bonding Corp. v. Caldwell

California Court of Appeal · Dec 29, 2021

(Italics added.) 17 not qualify as a retail installment contract under subdivision (a)(1) of section 1799.90 (see § 1802.6 [defining retail installment contracts]), but may qualify … Under the safe harbor doctrine, “[t]o forestall an action under the unfair competition law, another provision must actually ‘bar’ the action or clearly permit the conduct.” (Id. at p. 183.)

Coe v. City of San Diego

3 Cal. App. 5th 772 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 28, 2016

, has not established the City deprived her of due process of law. … Such boards are vested with a high discretion and its abuse 22 must appear very clearly before the courts will interfere.' " ' [Citation.]

Lopez v. Dayton CA1/1

California Court of Appeal · May 23, 2024

It did not reach defendants’ immunity argument. Lopez appealed. III. DISCUSSION A. … Again, case law clearly establishes that transporting a patient via ambulance constitutes the “rendering of professional services.”

Avivi v. Centro Medico Urgente Medical Center

71 Cal. Rptr. 3d 707 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 24, 2008

She argues that her expert witness was qualified to provide an opinion about the standard of care to which respondents were held and that the expert’s declaration, if admitted, would have established a triable issue of fact … The declaration clearly links respondents’ concrete actions to appellant’s concrete harm; the mere fact that Dr.

Rittiman v. Public Utilities Commission

California Court of Appeal · Jul 13, 2022

Thus, by its plain terms, this exemption exempts any communication “of,” as well as “to,” the Governor and his or her staff that qualifies as “correspondence.” … Again, he made no claim that any of the 38 communications he sought did not otherwise qualify as “correspondence” under the PRA.