Case law

Annenberg v. SOUTHERN CAL. DIST. COUNCIL

38 Cal. App. 3d 637 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 15, 1974

It is reading too much into this record to conclude that plaintiff's home has become some kind of a quasi-public establishment. … Clearly, the place of employment is the traditional and proper focus for picketing activity.

Ramirez v. Long Beach Mem. Med. Center CA2/8

California Court of Appeal · Mar 20, 2013

The hospital argued that, while Nurse Reigers was a qualified nurse, she was not a qualified emergency room nurse. … as a matter of law that the hospital is immune from respondeat superior liability via a Mejia defense.

Johnson v. Dept. of Transportation

California Court of Appeal · Mar 17, 2025

28 materials that obviously or clearly appear to be privileged,” and the other, “when an attorney ascertains that he or she received materials that are not obviously or clearly privileged, but nonetheless may be privileged … While McDermott concluded that the receipt of “materials that are not obviously or clearly privileged . . . triggers a more limited response” than the receipt of “materials that obviously or clearly appear to be privileged

Hernandez v. Superior Court

4 Cal. Rptr. 3d 883 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 23, 2003

If an objection is based on a claim of privilege, the particular privilege invoked shall be clearly stated. … In addition, the court ordered petitioners to serve defendants with a declaration from one or more qualified experts with regard to each product or equipment identified in compliance with the first part of the order, stating

JRS Products, Inc. v. Matsushita Electric Corp. of America

8 Cal. Rptr. 3d 840 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 25, 2004

Section 20037 expressly qualifies the applicability of section 20035. … That is clearly not the law.

Johnson v. Dept. of Transportation

California Court of Appeal · Apr 4, 2025

28 materials that obviously or clearly appear to be privileged,” and the other, “when an attorney ascertains that he or she received materials that are not obviously or clearly privileged, but nonetheless may be privileged … While McDermott concluded that the receipt of “materials that are not obviously or clearly privileged . . . triggers a more limited response” than the receipt of “materials that obviously or clearly appear to be privileged

People v. Moore

50 Cal. App. 3d 989 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 27, 1975

Nevertheless, as conceded by respondent Moore’s counsel, there is in criminal discovery proceedings some application of “work product” principles, not to the extent applicable in civil cases but in a qualified or more restrictive … While this civil case discovery statute does not apply to criminal discovery proceedings, clearly no greater immunity properly may be claimed than there permitted. Suezaki v.

People v. Weaver

161 Cal. App. 3d 119 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 24, 1984

“Clearly, the punishment prescribed for prior serious felony convictions under Proposition 8 may be imposed even though the prior convictions were suffered prior to the enactment of section 667. [Citations.]” … Ray (1960) 181 Cal.App.2d 64 [ 5 Cal.Rptr. 113 ], wherein Justice Tobriner said, “The constitutionality of [the habitual criminal] law is so well established it calls for no discussion. [Citation.]” (Id., at p. 69.)

People Ex Rel. Reisig v. Acuna

9 Cal. App. 5th 1 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 28, 2017

So any error regarding Ybarra’s admission was clearly harmless. … The trial court found it qualified as a spontaneous statement, reconsidered at defense request, and again found it qualified as a spontaneous statement.

Hallinan v. Prindle

17 Cal. App. 2d 656 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 27, 1936

patient, or in his office, without assistance these preparations would necessarily devolve upon him, there is nothing in their nature which renders it improper or even undesirable that they be undertaken by another person, qualified … “While a negligent act, clearly shown to be such, cannot be justified on the ground of custom or usage, and evidence of such custom or usage is not generally admissible for that purpose, evidence that a person charged with

Woo Chul Lee v. Interinsurance Exchange of Automobile Club

50 Cal. App. 4th 694 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 31, 1996

make substantive financial decisions, such as setting and investing premiums and arriving at appropriate surplus levels, which are no different from those required of corporate and mutual insurers, and courts are no better qualified … The common law business judgment rule has two components—one which immunizes directors from personal liability if they act in accordance with its requirements, and another which insulates from court intervention those management

JR Norton Co. v. GENERAL TEAMSTERS, WAREHOUSEMEN

208 Cal. App. 3d 430 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 3, 1989

To do so will, in effect, grant petitioners immunity from liability for their tortious conduct. We see no substantial reason for reaching such a result.” (United Workers v. … ‘Policing of actual or threatened violence to persons or destruction of property has been held most clearly a matter for the States.’ [Citations.]”

People v. Garza CA5

California Court of Appeal · Jun 5, 2024

“Senate Bill 1437 also [added former section 1170.95, now section 1172.6, which] established a procedure permitting certain qualifying persons who were previously convicted of felony murder or murder under the natural and … Use Immunity Defendant contends the admission of his statements to the parole board violated his state and federal due process rights under the use immunity doctrine. We again disagree.

Hope v. California Youth Authority

36 Cal. Rptr. 3d 154 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 13, 2005

I BACKGROUND For around 18 years, plaintiff Bruce Hope worked as a cook or chef in various restaurants and other establishments. … Hope went to see Maggie Yamamoto, the food manager, and asked her why others were saying that he had human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) or acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS).

Duff v. Schaefer Ambulance Service, Inc.

132 Cal. App. 2d 655 · California Court of Appeal · May 2, 1955

Clearly this was immaterial to any issues here involved. Counsel, however, suggested he would establish that the persons who gave her rides were on expense accounts with the Union. … She further asserts that it was unnecessary for her to establish point (3) if she had established points (1) and (2) above.

Rose v. County of Fresno CA5

California Court of Appeal · Dec 7, 2021

More specifically, County argues that “the evidence clearly establishes that no reasonable person would consider that the sand posed a substantial risk of injury when the property is used with due care in a reasonabl[y] foreseeable … In reply, “County asserts that the evidence presented clearly establishes that no reasonable person would consider that the sand posed a substantial risk of injury when the property is used with due care in a reasonabl[y]

Summit Bank v. Rogers

206 Cal. App. 4th 669 · California Court of Appeal · May 29, 2012

NLRB (2002) 536 U.S. 516, 530-531 [ 153 L.Ed.2d 499 , 122 S.Ct. 2390 ] [“ ‘[F]alse statements are not immunized by the First Amendment right to freedom of speech . . . .’ ”]; Bill Johnson’s Restaurants, Inc. v. … a meaning cannot compel this court to establish liability at so low a threshold.”

Thornton v. Carlson

4 Cal. App. 4th 1249 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 25, 1992

In 1973, the California Legislature also established a fully state-funded program to provide additional emergency payments to SSI recipients. (Stats. 1973, ch. 1216.) … “Under these circumstances, the administrative practice will be upheld ‘ “unless it is clearly erroneous or unauthorized.’’ ’ ” (Steelgard, Inc. v.

Estate of Sarabia

221 Cal. App. 3d 599 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 21, 1990

entails a qualitative assessment of the relationship between the decedent and the beneficiary; to know what influence was "undue" requires knowledge of what influence, if any, would qualify for a more benign interpretation … The issue of whether Gibbs unduly profited from the will was not established as a matter of law.

People v. Gerold

174 Cal. App. 4th 781 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 3, 2009

The court stated, “I think this is a situation that the [L]egislature clearly didn’t foresee, and I think we need to dispense a little justice here.” The court, therefore, granted the petition. … The appellate court reversed the conviction finding that there was “ ‘insufficient evidence that information taken by [the defendant] qualified as a trade secret ....’” (Ibid., italics added.)