Case law

Linsteadt v. Nicholas

177 Cal. App. 3d 1071 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 25, 1986

As noted above, the will clearly authorizes sale of any and all trust assets by the trustee. … However, no evidence suggested that ownership of the cattle established ownership of the registration privileges.

Ervin v. Ben-Nun CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · Aug 29, 2014

Section 11172 provides absolute immunity to mandatory reporters who report child abuse to proper authorities, but it provides only qualified immunity to voluntary reporters (including parents) who report child abuse. … If these elements apply, there is generally an exception to the section 47(b) absolute privilege, and a qualified immunity governs the communication.

People v. Hughes

California Court of Appeal · Sep 11, 2019

Instead, they argue the Legislature “clearly signal[ed] its intent” to rebut the Estrada inference. (People v. Nasalga (1996) 12 Cal.4th 784, 793.) … If the trial court determines that Hughes qualifies for diversion under section 1001.36, then the court may grant diversion.

Pieri v. City and County of San Francisco

40 Cal. Rptr. 3d 629 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 21, 2006

It is true that "it should not be presumed that the legislative body intends to overthrow long-established principles of law unless such intention is made clearly to appear either by express declaration or by necessary implication … However, even if the court's construction in Channing Properties of former section 7060.1, subdivision (c) qualified as a "long-established principle[] of law," we would disagree with Pieri's conclusion.

People v. Arnold

243 Cal. App. 2d 510 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 15, 1966

The evidence establishes that the officers had reasonable cause to believe that the defendant had committed and was in the process of committing a felony. (§ 836, Pen. Code; People v. … At that point Officer McCarthy was clearly justified in making further investigation by entering the room containing the telephone and other items.

Collins v. Overnite Transportation Co.

129 Cal. Rptr. 2d 254 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 3, 2003

Wage Order No. 9 “The IWC is a five-member appointive board initially established by the Legislature in 1913. … The minimum remuneration level to qualify for the exemption is raised to “a monthly salary equivalent to no less than two times the state minimum wage for full-time employment,” defined in subdivision (c) as 40 hours per

Pease v. Zapf

California Court of Appeal · Aug 17, 2018

In November 1992, San Diego voters approved an amendment to the city charter that established a term limit for members of the San Diego City Council. … Bryan Pease is a city council candidate who did not qualify for the November 2018 general election.

Vanoni v. County of Sonoma

40 Cal. App. 3d 743 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 19, 1974

board of education, or school district, shall incur any indebtedness or liability in any manner or for any purpose exceeding in any year the income and revenue provided for such year, without the assent of two-thirds of the qualified … the district’s governing body. 2 As appellants point out, Riverside was limited to the question of the applicability of the statutory venuepro vision, but a similar conclusion would appear proper in the present case. *750 Clearly

McQuarrie v. Kuttler

160 Cal. App. 2d 332 · California Court of Appeal · May 12, 1958

If she makes a bequest which violates the rule against perpetuities ( Estate of Fair, 132 Cal. 523 [ 60 P. 442 , 64 P. 1000 , 84 Am.St.Rep. 70 ]) or attempts to immunize a trust beneficiary's income from claims of his creditors … ascertainable, must yield to an established rule of law or public policy if it is in conflict therewith.

Santa Clarita Organization for Planning & the Environment v. Abercrombie

240 Cal. App. 4th 300 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 10, 2015

(c)), each of which constitutes a “financial interest” under section 87103; (2) Abercrombie’s involvement in the negotiations qualifies as “participat[ion] in making a governmental decision” (2 Cal. … More specifically, section 15.2, subdivision (d) “takes away” 20 from section 87100’s reach by immunizing the conflict of interest that would otherwise be proscribed by section

Angel v. Los Angeles Gas & Electric Corp.

5 Cal. App. 2d 270 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 15, 1935

If we can say with assurance that the jurors must have understood that such other instructions qualified the specific instruction and that the instructions as a whole were understood by the jurors with the same effect as … As to the alleged unlawful adjustment of the headlight on the motorcycle, which defendant claims to have proved and thereby to have established contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff, we think the jury clearly had

Werschkull v. United California Bank

85 Cal. App. 3d 981 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 30, 1978

Rul. 68-242 both annuity contracts were issued under a single qualified plan. … Finally, it is undisputed that at all times since the SFB Plan was established, UCB was able to pay such sums out of the fund which had been established for that purpose.

People v. Washington

211 Cal. App. 3d 207 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 6, 1989

The People opposed the motion for the reason, among others, that it was premature because it had not been established that appellant would take the stand. At a pretrial hearing in March before Judge W. … The court clearly determined that it would not decide the impeachment issue until after appellant testified.

People v. Crosier

41 Cal. App. 3d 712 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 12, 1974

“If lay witnesses can give an opinion as to sanity, there is no logical reason why qualified lay witnesses cannot give an opinion as to mental condition less than sanity.” (People v. … Webb sanctioned a qualified lay opinion as to the state of mind short of insanity affecting the formulation of a specific intent.

Davis v. State of California CA4/3

California Court of Appeal · Sep 4, 2014

The trial court granted summary judgment applying the design immunity of section 830.6. The Supreme Court reversed holding there were triable issues of fact as to whether the design immunity applied. … Interim Measures Finally, Davis argues that even the immunities asserted by the State (design immunity/reasonable act or omission immunity) applied, the State was nonetheless liable for failing to take reasonable

People v. Schwenkner

191 Cal. App. 2d 46 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 7, 1961

I think I qualified my answers to the extent that it explains whether or not it is something that I know for a fact or what was likely to have happened. … You have to depend on the policy that you establish for a pattern. *50 . “Q. Can yon answer my question: Are you guessing on some of your answers? A. I am basing my answers on the policy of the company. ‘1Q.

Renteria v. County of Orange

82 Cal. App. 3d 833 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 17, 1978

The court rejected the contention, stating that Labor Code section 3600 clearly provided that the compensation remedy was exclusive. … Workmen’s Compensation Appeals Board, 6 Cal.3d 719 [ 100 Cal.Rptr. 301 , 493 P.2d 1165 ], which held that the constitutional provision establishing a system of compensation “ ‘ irrespective of the fault of any party’. . .

Eastman v. Piper

68 Cal. App. 554 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 5, 1924

The argument is tantamount to a claim that the interest of an easement may not be a base, qualified or determinable fee, i. e., an estate which may last forever but which may end on the happening of a merely possible event … It is well established that an easement, like any other estate in land, may be such base or determinable fee. (Hall v. Turner, 110 N. C. 292 [ 14 S. E. 791 ].)

Harbour Vista v. HSBC Mortgage Services Inc.

201 Cal. App. 4th 1496 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 19, 2011

The court clearly acts as a fact finder and adjudicates issues when it determines whether to quiet title in the plaintiff. … And it clearly does not want the court to adjudicate title on prima facie evidence, as would be allowed in an ordinary default prove-up.

Hatch v. Bush

215 Cal. App. 2d 692 · California Court of Appeal · May 3, 1963

against the estate to establish the demand here attempted to be enforced by personal action against the defendants.” … They clearly are services rendered to the administrators for the benefit of the estate, and compensable only as such.