Case law

City of Palo Alto v. Service Employees International Union

91 Cal. Rptr. 2d 500 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 29, 1999

It has clearly been demonstrated that what may not be understood as threats between two employees at the work site, may well be perceived as real and alarming by those who are outside that environment.” … “Absent a clear expression of illegality or public policy undermining this strong presumption in favor of private arbitration, an arbitral award should ordinarily stand immune from judicial scrutiny.” (Moncharsh v.

Garcia v. Hyster Co.

28 Cal. App. 4th 724 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 23, 1994

During the course of the trial, intervener Travelers failed to qualify its expert with respect to the safety hazards of the Hyster order picker or as to the adequacy of any manuals or warnings that may have existed with respect … Section 1032, subdivision (a)(4) clearly evidences a legislative intent to award costs to a “prevailing party.”

Johnigan v. Elevated Resources CA1/1

California Court of Appeal · Sep 5, 2025

“[A] defendant who makes a statement to others on a matter of common interest is immunized from liability for defamation so long as the statement is made ‘without malice.’ ” (Lundquist, at p. 1196.) … Credit Union (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 985, 995 [“Communications made in a commercial setting relating to the conduct of an employee have been held to fall squarely within 6 the qualified

Silva v. James P.

227 Cal. App. 3d 1322 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 30, 1991

Clearly the purpose of reunification services is to facilitate the return of a dependent child to parental custody. … In juvenile dependency statutes, on the other hand, no explanatory or qualifying language accompanies the use of these terms.

Wilson v. Cook

197 Cal. App. 3d 344 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 29, 1987

Respondents also sponsor midweek evening barbecues at the lake where qualified persons can use respondents’ sailboards at no charge. … “Statutes must be upheld unless their unconstitutionality clearly, positively and unmistakably appears. [Citations.] . . .

People v. Hopper

145 Cal. App. 2d 180 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 18, 1956

As stated in the dissenting opinion in amplification of the statement of facts in the opinion by the majority, at page 81: “The evidence clearly indicates that defendant chased his victim about the house inflicting terrific … If the subject matter was one for expert testimony, then we think the coroner was qualified.

People v. Woods

75 Cal. Rptr. 2d 917 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 15, 1998

Such rooms fall more clearly within the traditional notion of a dwelling house—a place where mementos and other personal items are kept and thus a space deserving of special protection. … The evidence established the room was usually kept locked so that only tenants were permitted access to it.

Estate of Nelson

227 Cal. App. 2d 42 · California Court of Appeal · May 5, 1964

He clearly is not competent to testify to the diagnosis which is set forth in the declaration nor its meaning. … Moreover, counsel for contestant clearly cannot testify to this of his own knowledge, since it was alleged to be a comment of counsel for respondent.

Pacific Merchant Shipping Assn. v. Bd.of Pilot Commissioners CA1/5

242 Cal. App. 4th 1043 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 6, 2015

A CPRA plaintiff does not qualify as a prevailing party merely because the defendant disclosed records sometime after the CPRA action was filed. In Rogers v. … The petition clearly encompassed PMSA’s broad requests for the Port Agent’s public records.

Bottoms v. Superior Court

82 Cal. App. 764 · California Court of Appeal · May 6, 1927

Section 1244 of the Code of Civil Procedure, though, clearly settles that matter. … a different rule from that established by the section just named.

Fireman's Fund Insurance v. Security Pacific National Bank

85 Cal. App. 3d 797 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 17, 1978

It has also been established that “. . . ‘plaintiff need only plead facts showing that he may be entitled to some relief [citation].’ [Citation.] … Fireman’s final contention is that even if section 3418 precludes a common law action for negligence against a collecting bank after final payment has been made, this immunity applies only to a drawee bank, and not to a drawer

In Re AA

7 Cal. Rptr. 3d 755 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 22, 2003

(1) respondent does not qualify for presumed father status, and (2) the appellant who was designated a de facto parent does qualify as a presumed father. … Subdivision (c) clearly states that a section 7611 presumption is rebutted by a judgment; the judgment acts to preclude the issue of paternity from being redetermined.

Woodworth v. Redwood Empire Savings & Loan Ass'n

22 Cal. App. 3d 347 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 23, 1971

Nor is there any evidence that Woodworth intended to qualify the language in any manner. … Clearly, Woodworth’s over-all conduct met all of the traditional elements of estoppel. Finally, citing Jones v.

Department of Social Services v. Ernestine A.

13 Cal. App. 4th 125 · California Court of Appeal · May 21, 1992

Korpi was biased or that he was anything other than a disinterested and highly qualified expert seeking to evaluate the best interests of the minor. … However, the requirement that a party establish facts by “clear and convincing evidence” applies only in the trial court.

Valdovinos v. Kia Motors America, Inc.

California Court of Appeal · Sep 23, 2024

Kia Motors America, Inc. (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 187, 194), and even if the “cause of the purported defect” is not “establish[ed]” (Mikhaeilpoor v. … Immunizing such manufacturers from liability for the Act’s civil penalty makes sense because “[t]hose who proceed on a reasonable, good faith belief that they have conformed their conduct to the law’s requirements do not

In Re Sabrina H.

217 Cal. App. 3d 702 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 3, 1990

Section 7004 lists the several ways in which a man may qualify as a "presumed father." Most of the listed conditions refer to actual or attempted marriage. … Bright has never sought custody of Sabrina nor has he ever filed an action to establish paternity under section 7006(c).

In Re Marriage of Lewin

186 Cal. App. 3d 1482 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 12, 1986

and undesirable to change the child’s established mode of living.’ … Those considerations were here, however, clearly outweighed by the other factors cited by the court.

Sumner v. Simpson University

California Court of Appeal · Sep 25, 2018

This status is clearly stated to the faculty member both verbally and in writing.” Sumner was terminated the first time on June 22, 2011. … The Supreme Court has refused to adopt a rigid formula for deciding when an employee qualifies as a minister.

Leplat v. Raley Wiles Auto Sales

62 Cal. App. 2d 628 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 31, 1944

Appellant testified, but somewhat equivocally, that he told McLaren that Rosati had a qualified license that would permit him to drive only when accompanied by a licensed operator and that he should not let him drive alone … Therefore it was clearly within the discretionary power of the trial court, on motion for new trial, to exercise its own judgment in determining whether the acts of Rosati in so doing were with the implied permission of appellant

McKee v. Bright & Powell CA2/6

California Court of Appeal · Nov 30, 2015

Although appellant claims that the 30-day termination notices and unlawful detainer action were retaliatory, respondents' conduct in representing Jones clearly falls within the litigation privilege. … Sherwood Partners, Inc., supra, 131 Cal.App.4th at p. 818 [discussing exceptions to agent immunity rule].)