Case law

Evans v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co.

213 Cal. App. 3d 1378 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 15, 1989

construed as *1385 directly repealing § 1981” (p. 1253) and added that it “[could] not conclude that these statutes are irreconcilable or that the RLA covers the subject matter of racial discrimination in contracting or was clearly … like California’s FEHA, provides that it is an unfair employment practice for an employer “to refuse to hire, to discharge, to promote or demote, or to discriminate in matters of compensation against, any person otherwise qualified

Equitable Trust Co. of New York v. Western Land & Power Co.

38 Cal. App. 535 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 1, 1918

and this is testimony as to the number issued. ’ ’ The witness then testified, to which there was no objection made, that the plaintiff company accepted the trust involved in the trust deed, dated July 15, 1911, and duly qualified … It appears clearly enough that under no circumstances could a new trial give superiority to appellants’ lien.

Ryan v. California Interscholastic Federation-San Diego Section

114 Cal. Rptr. 2d 798 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 24, 2001

‘Only those rights, privileges and immunities that are secured by the Constitution of the United States or some Act of Congress are within the protection of the federal courts. … Rights, privileges and immunities not derived from the federal Constitution or secured thereby are left exclusively to the protection of the states.’

Huverserian v. Catalina Scuba Luv, Inc.

184 Cal. App. 4th 1462 · California Court of Appeal · May 26, 2010

No qualifying language of the type employed here appeared in the Madison release. … Such an agreement, read as a whole, must clearly notify the prospective releasor or indemnitor of the effect of signing the agreement.’ [Citation.]” (Id. at p. 598.)

Baker Pacific Corp. v. Suttles

220 Cal. App. 3d 1148 · California Court of Appeal · May 25, 1990

Such an agreement, read as a whole, must clearly notify the prospective releasor or indemnitor of the effect of signing the agreement.’” (Madison v. … But a law established for a public reason cannot be contravened by a private agreement."

In Re Brittany K.

117 Cal. Rptr. 2d 813 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 28, 2002

VI, §§ 21, 22; In re *Page 810 Horton (1991) 54 Cal.3d 82 , 90.) 21 Code of Civil Procedure section 259 provides that "every court commissioner shall have the power" to "[a]ct as temporary judge when otherwise qualified so … This provision is clearly inapplicable here, as there is no such order at issue.

Martinez v. Toledo CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · Jan 8, 2025

. § 230) immunizes Internet users from liability for republications of others’ defamatory statements and because Chaplin’s accusation against Martinez was true. … Our Supreme Court has prescribed a two-step analysis for deciding whether speech has the requisite connection to an issue of public interest to qualify for anti-SLAPP statute protection.

Estate of Hartson

200 Cal. App. 2d 757 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 27, 1962

She cannot now qualify as a "remaining child" under the substitutionary clause because she did not qualify at the crucial time fixed by the testatrix. … We conclude that the testatrix did not draw an elaborate will which sought to cover every contingency and yet provide for intestacy in one clearly foreseeable event; she clearly did not contemplate intestacy in the special

Zhang v. Super. Ct.

California Court of Appeal · Nov 9, 2022

After 7 receiving preliminary briefing, we concluded petitioner had not established entitlement to extraordinary relief, and denied the petition. … But Viking also explains: “[U]nder our decisions, even rules that are generally applicable as a formal matter are not immune to preemption by the FAA. [Citations.]

Estate of Sanders

2 Cal. App. 4th 462 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 7, 1992

Nonetheless, we shall consider both proposals. (1) First, the trial court's refusal to order DNA testing of Sanders's surviving adult children along with their mothers clearly was correct. … The tests shall be performed by a qualified expert appointed by the court." ( Minn.

Banks v. Dominican College

35 Cal. App. 4th 1545 · California Court of Appeal · May 26, 1995

A plaintiff’s burden of establishing arbitrary and capricious conduct on the part of a private college or university, however, is a heavy one. [Citation.] … The evidence presented to the trial court here clearly established that appellant was dismissed from the Dominican degree program due to numerous academic deficiencies and serious lapses of professional judgment, which rightly

Hernandez v. Badger Construction Equipment Co.

28 Cal. App. 4th 1791 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 13, 1994

Instead, noting that the classifications identified in MacDonald & Kruse, Inc. are not totally dispositive, those cases have applied well-established general principles of contract interpretation in determining indemnity … Where, as here, the agreement clearly indicates that one party was to be indemnified for any damages sustained as a result of another’s breach of the contract, and it is undisputed that the accident would never have happened

People v. Hess

107 Cal. App. 2d 407 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 8, 1951

Two alternate jurors were thereupon selected, qualified and seated. … The courts have repeatedly held that a conspiracy may be established by circumstantial evidence alone and that the question presented was whether the conspiracy had been established.

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.

Board of Retirement v. Superior Court

124 Cal. Rptr. 2d 850 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 5, 2002

Section 13967.2 establishes an enforcement mechanism for restitution orders that is unavailable for ordinary civil judgments. … They create only a general and qualified constitutional right to restitution. (See ante, at p. 1066.)

Moser v. Ratinoff

130 Cal. Rptr. 2d 198 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 31, 2003

In view of these considerations, the organized, long-distance, group bicycle ride qualifies as a "sport" for purposes of the application of the primary assumption of risk doctrine. IV. … The primary assumption of risk rule "does not grant unbridled legal immunity to all defendants participating in sporting activity.

Galli v. State of California

98 Cal. App. 3d 662 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 13, 1979

The legislative act established a district consisting of territory within existing Reclamation Districts Nos. 317, 407 and 2067. (§ 4.) … The Tort Claims Act clearly distinguishes between the state and local public entities.

Mountain View Chamber of Commerce v. City of Mountain View

77 Cal. App. 3d 82 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 25, 1978

Clearly, the chamber of commerce could have qualified as the agent of any of its members if it had chosen to seek a variance. … If it had received an adverse decision, it would have been an “aggrieved” party qualified to appeal to the city council.

Terzian v. Superior Court

10 Cal. App. 3d 286 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 6, 1970

On the other hand, Henwood clearly indicates that real party in interest should be afforded the opportunity to make a showing of necessity or convenience by establishing that the agency is unfit, that the child’s immediate … The order of the court, as qualified by the stipulation of the parties, preserves confidentiality to the extent that the information contained in the report of the probation office shall only be imparted to the court and

Moore v. Super. Ct.

California Court of Appeal · Dec 11, 2020

It created a pretrial diversion program for qualifying defendants who suffer from a diagnosed and qualifying mental disorder, “including, but not limited to, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, or … As Tellez concluded, “[t]his history establishes that the Legislature wanted the existing bar on diversion for DUI offenses [in Vehicle Code section 23640] to take precedence [over Penal Code section 1001.36].