Case law

Moreno v. Bassi

California Court of Appeal · Jun 8, 2021

section 1194, a provision that clearly would apply in any situation where there was a demand greater than $300. … Neither statute has qualifying language stating how conflicts with other statutes should be resolved.

Stack v. City of Lemoore

California Court of Appeal · May 3, 2023

As when establishing duty in a general negligence claim, one establishes a condition’s dangerousness (or conversely, its triviality) for a section 835 claim by reference to its reasonably foreseeable use by reasonably careful … “[C]ourts have treated the question of whether a defect is too trivial to qualify as a dangerous condition as distinct from the question of whether the defect is obvious enough to impart constructive notice.”

People v. Williams

150 Cal. App. 2d 171 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 16, 1957

Jay Allen, a qualified forensic chemist, testified that he examined the contents of the foregoing package and “found no evidence of narcotics.” … Newland, 15 Cal.2d 678, 681 [ 104 P.2d 778 ], “it must be made clearly to appear that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support the conclusion reached in the court below.”

People v. Schultz

California Court of Appeal · Jul 20, 2021

“To prove an abuse of discretion, ‘“[t]he burden is on the party attacking the sentence to clearly show that the sentencing decision was irrational or arbitrary. [Citation.] … Defendant’s disagreement with the court’s decision falls well short of establishing the court abused its discretion.

Eureka Citizens for Responsible Government v. City of Eureka

54 Cal. Rptr. 3d 485 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 1, 2007

If the project does not qualify for a negative declaration, the third step in the process is to prepare a full EIR. (Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21100, 21151; Guidelines, §§ 15063, subd. … We need not decide whether such an exemption applies in this case, since the evidence does not establish any clear inconsistency with the general plan.

Bagheri v. Adeli-Nadjafi CA2/7

California Court of Appeal · Jan 25, 2016

She need only establish a probability of prevailing on one theory. (See Oasis West Realty, LLC v. … In effect, the doctrine immunizes conduct encompassed by the Petition Clause [of the First Amendment]—i.e., legitimate efforts to influence a branch of government—from virtually all forms of civil liability.”

USS-POSCO Industries v. Floyd Case

244 Cal. App. 4th 197 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 26, 2016

Whether ultimately donated or not, these were costs UPI incurred in establishing and conducting the program. … Focusing on the burden the amended rule would impose— “Andreini’s liability for MacCorkle’s costs would zoom from $6,553.12 to $221,324.52”—the court concluded it “would clearly qualify as ‘ “ ‘ “new or different liabilit

Merry v. Coast Community College District

97 Cal. App. 3d 214 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 25, 1979

If plaintiff had raised his state claims in Merry II, they would clearly have been dismissed without prejudice. … If however, the court in the first action would clearly not have had jurisdiction to entertain the omitted theoiy or ground (or, having jurisdiction, would clearly have declined to exercise it as a matter of discretion),

People v. Miller

56 Cal. App. 472 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 16, 1922

The district attorney then, over defendant’s objection, questioned her as to other parts of such former testimony tending to qualify that read by counsel for defendant and make it consistent with that given by her on the … Proposed instruction No. 23 is so clearly argumentative as to merit no discussion.

Hibbs v. Allstate Insurance

193 Cal. App. 4th 809 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 24, 2011

The policy clearly and unequivocally provides that Allstate has the option to repair. … Co. (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 846, 865 [ 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 318 ] [admission by insurer’s employees does not establish liability under an insurance policy].)

Turner v. Smith CA1/2

California Court of Appeal · Apr 26, 2023

In Barro, the defendant’s prior conviction for mayhem, which had been dismissed under Penal Code section 1385, could not qualify as a strike under the Three Strikes law. (Id. at p. 64.) … It is well-established that the fact that Turner’s state law claims were preserved for state court litigation means that defendants cannot prevail on an argument that the claims are barred in state court by the doctrine of

San Francisco Fire Fighters v. City & County of San Francisco

152 Cal. App. 3d 113 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 22, 1984

In the case of police officers who join the fire department after November 1, 1976, the plan established pursuant to Proposition L clearly applies. … department plan, reads in relevant part as follows: “The following time shall be included in the computation of the service to be credited to a member of the police department for the purposes of determining whether such member qualified

G. B. v. Lackner

80 Cal. App. 3d 64 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 20, 1978

Male genitals have to be considered more than just skin, one would think. *71 The definition relied upon by the Director to establish that the surgery must be considered cosmetic requires that the alteration (of the skin) … It is clearly impossible to conclude that transsexual surgery is cosmetic surgery, even using the definition relied on by the Director. Drs.

Fredette v. City of Long Beach

187 Cal. App. 3d 122 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 21, 1986

The very manner in which plaintiff, a trained athlete, positioned himself for the dive clearly established that he recognized the dangers associated with using the pier as a diving platform. … (Recommendation Relating to Sovereign Immunity, 4 Cal. Law Revision Com. Rep. (1963) p. 822.)

Cory v. Security Pacific National Bank

84 Cal. App. 3d 717 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 8, 1978

The will set forth cash bequests to those employees who could qualify for them because of the length of their employment. … at the time the trust would be established.

Baglione v. Health Net of Cal.

California Court of Appeal · Dec 6, 2023

Enrollment Form “Section 1363.1 establishes mandatory disclosure requirements for health services plans that require binding arbitration. [Citations.] … Health Net explains quite clearly in its opening brief on appeal that the plan is not subject to ERISA because Santa Clara, “as a political subdivision of the State of California established and maintains health benefit plans

Jewish Defense Organization, Inc. v. Superior Court

85 Cal. Rptr. 2d 611 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 8, 1999

At one end of the spectrum are situations where a defendant clearly does business over the Internet. … That would not comport with traditional notions of what qualifies as purposeful activity invoking the benefits and protections of the forum state.”

Arocho v. California Fair Plan Insurance

36 Cal. Rptr. 3d 200 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 28, 2005

from the definition of an “agent.” 14 In effect, the trial court equated the statutory term “representative” in section 340.9 with the statutory term “agent” as defined in Insurance Code section 31. 15 Yet the Legislature, clearly … Second, the language is inconsistent with and ineffectual to negate an actual representative relationship Fair Plan has established elsewhere in the Producers Manual.

E. A. Strout Western Realty Agency v. Gregoire

101 Cal. App. 2d 512 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 28, 1950

If it had been the intention to deprive the owner of the right to sell, or in case of such sale to create a liability for commissions, it could and, no doubt, would have been easily and clearly expressed.” In Walter v. … respondents without having been presented with any offer, oral or written, from appellant’s customer to buy the property for any sum and without their having in effect known of this claim by appellant that its customer qualified

People v. Murphy

173 Cal. App. 2d 367 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 27, 1959

The eases relied upon by appellant are clearly distinguishable. In People v. … In any event, the statement of the district attorney did not amount to a promise of immunity conditioned upon Murphy testifying in a certain way (see People v. Green, 102 Cal.App.2d 831, 838-839 [ 228 P.2d 867 ]).