Case law

Dyer v. Childress

55 Cal. Rptr. 3d 544 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 26, 2007

Terry held the communications in issue clearly warranted anti-SLAPP protection because they involved the important societal interest of protecting children from predators. (Id. at p. 1547.) … ’s right of petition or free speech under the United States or California Constitution in connection with a public issue shall be subject to a special motion to strike, unless the court determines that the plaintiff has established

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 ].)

Med-Trans Corporation, Inc. v. City of California City

68 Cal. Rptr. 3d 17 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 19, 2007

The federal lawsuit had alleged, among other things, that Kern County was involved in anticompetitive practices by wrongly denying ambulance permits to otherwise qualified companies. … That quotation clearly has no bearing here, where the attorney solicited the prospective client (not the other way around) and, pursuant thereto, engaged in a conversation that has not been shown to have involved the disclosure

Leppo v. City of Petaluma

20 Cal. App. 3d 711 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 20, 1971

We conclude that in emergency situations the city may act summarily to abate a nuisance, but in such case the city must be prepared to establish by a preponderance of evidence that an emergency actually existed. … This opinion by a qualified expert in the field clearly amounts to substantial evidence. Since the trial court had resolved the issue on substantial evidence, we are bound by that determination.

People v. Valdez

California Court of Appeal · Apr 28, 2016

The prior common-law standards, established in accordance with 16 constitutional principles, had always permitted insanity to be established under either prong of a test stated … in the disjunctive: e.g., “‘it must be clearly proved that, at the time of the committing the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality

Friends of Mammoth v. Town of Mammoth Lakes Redevelopment Agency

98 Cal. Rptr. 2d 334 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 21, 2000

This statement admits the airport does not qualify as urbanized land under subdivision (b)(3) of Health and Safety Code section 33320.1. … The statute clearly intends for evidence of the physical condition’s impact on economic viability to be in the record to support the finding.

People v. Hill

12 Cal. App. 4th 798 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 20, 1993

Second, although the term “some basis,” even when qualified by the term reasonable, would not seem to present much of a limitation, careful analysis demonstrates that it does provide a significant limitation. … Guilt is established by presenting evidence to prove two things; first, the elements of the offense (the corpus delicti or body of the crime), and, second, the identity of the perpetrator.

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.

Reck v. FCA US LLC

California Court of Appeal · May 24, 2021

Thus, the offeree must be able to clearly evaluate the worth of the extended offer.’ [Citation.]” (MacQuiddy v. … This success validates the [plaintiff’s] rejection of the tendered settlement and immunizes her from detrimental consequences based upon that rejection.” (Id. at p. 341.)

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

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.

Price v. Victor Valley Union High School Dist.

California Court of Appeal · Nov 10, 2022

To succeed on her claim under that framework, Price has the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of disability discrimination. (Moore v. … “The ability to localize sound is particularly significant to police officers in split second, life-threatening situations when an officer cannot clearly see.” (Id. at p. 476.)

People v. Roerman

189 Cal. App. 2d 150 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 15, 1961

We could interfere with the finding of the jury only if we were convinced that freedom from gross negligence was so clearly established by the evidence that reasonable minds could not differ upon the question.” … Under the foregoing facts, the ruling was clearly correct.

RSB Vineyards v. Orsi

California Court of Appeal · Sep 29, 2017

pleaded, cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to that cause of action.’ … The record before us does not clearly establish the trial court made either ruling in its decision.2 In any event, we agree with RSB that Black’s deposition testimony was not a binding admission and that Miyano’s declaration

Tetra Pak, Inc. v. State Board of Equalization

234 Cal. App. 3d 1751 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 16, 1991

Relief will be granted unless clearly forbidden by statute. … The orders made subsequent to the judgment thus cannot, in this instance, qualify as appealable pursuant to section 904.1, subdivision (b), and the purported appeals therefrom must also be dismissed.

People v. Townsend

62 Cal. App. 4th 1390 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 10, 1998

minors were playing basketball on the campus. 10 Accordingly, whether or not the school was “open for classes or school-related programs,” the alternative criterion of the enhancement—that minors be using the facility—was clearly … The qualifying language “where the offense occurs” is necessary to identify which of “those facilities” must be in use by minors at the time of the offense.

MIitchell v. City of Indio

196 Cal. App. 3d 881 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 2, 1987

“(b) The number of qualified signers appearing on the petition.” … Prejudicial abuse of discretion is established if the court finds that any determination of a commission or a legislative body was not supported by substantial evidence in the light of the whole record.”

Deaile v. General Telephone Co. of California

40 Cal. App. 3d 841 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 22, 1974

denied plaintiff’s motion to compel answers to certain of plaintiff’s interrogatories. 4 In considering the first argument that the defense of privilege was not properly established, we note that the qualified or conditional … Hence, malice is not presumed; and, in order to establish a cause of action, it was necessary that plaintiff prove the existence of malice.” (See also Mullins v.

Fortner v. Safeway Stores, Inc.

229 Cal. App. 3d 542 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 22, 1991

On the assumption that the employment must generate the injury, plaintiff argues the evidence presented at most establishes that “forcing her to wear closed toe shoes aggravates her condition causing pain,” but does not establish … Clearly the statute contemplates an employer-employee relationship at the time of the discharge, threat of discharge or other discriminatory act.”

People v. Padilla

119 Cal. Rptr. 2d 457 · California Court of Appeal · May 1, 2002

We conclude that trial counsel’s failure to request any additional specific instruction in this case does not establish incompetence of counsel. … The accusatory pleading in this case, however, expressly accused appellant of prior qualifying convictions coming within subdivision (b).