Case law

Carver v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

217 Cal. App. 3d 1539 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 20, 1990

.) *1546 The Tort Exclusion CIGA is immune from tort liability for its own violations of the Unfair Practices Act (§§ 790-790.10), common law bad-faith actions and intentional infliction of emotional distress in connection … The amount at issue herein is clearly a workers’ compensation benefit, not tort damages, and is not excluded by section 1063.2, subdivision (h).

Weston Reid, LLC v. American Insurance Group, Inc.

174 Cal. App. 4th 940 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 4, 2009

Standard of Review We review an order sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend under well-established rules: “ ‘We treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or … Clearly, the Legislature was aware of these circumstances, and if they had intended the HLA to include first party (uninsured and underinsured) insurance coverage they would have expressly included them within the HLA provisions

Hunt v. Superior Court

97 Cal. Rptr. 2d 215 · California Court of Appeal · May 31, 2000

Gertler, that she would need financing to buy the equipment but was not optimistic she could qualify for a loan because the Small Business Administration had recently denied her request for a loan. … When an out-of-state resident’s only contact with California is a single purchase from a California vendor of goods for delivery out of state, there are insufficient minimum contacts to establish personal jurisdiction even

M Restaurants, Inc. v. San Francisco Local Joint Executive Board of Culinary Workers, Bartenders, Hotel, Motel & Club Service Workers & Dining Room Employees Union

124 Cal. App. 3d 666 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 19, 1981

Inherently, the means authorized are clearly unobjectionable. … The Supreme Court has now established “that picketing which obstructs access, because of its tendency to lead to violence, is not the ‘peaceful picketing’ immunized from injunction by [subd. (b) of § 527.3].

Birotte v. Superior Court

177 Cal. App. 4th 559 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 8, 2009

They argue a suspect's identity is conclusively established by DNA testing only after qualified laboratory staff completely evaluate and review the data. … by DNA testing," a standard clearly intended to be more stringent than simply a link (or a match) to the suspect by DNA testing. 3.

Morlife, Inc. v. Perry

56 Cal. App. 4th 1514 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 14, 1997

The requirement that a customer list must have economic value to qualify as a trade secret has been interpreted to mean that the secrecy of this information provides a business with a “substantial business advantage.” … In view of the clearly established violation of the UTSA, the injunction correctly draws the line, and leaves Burlingame free to solicit customers whose identities are not the trade secrets of Morlife.

Kauffman v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board

273 Cal. App. 2d 829 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 10, 1969

It indicates that the latter phrase connotes more extensive facilities and more intensive individual care and attention, including the services of a resident physician and nursing personnel qualified to dispense medicines … An order enforcing an award for medical and hospital treatment is in the ordinary case an order for reimbursement of self-procured treatment and such an order is clearly neither a rescission, an alteration nor an amendment

Schessler v. Keck

125 Cal. App. 2d 827 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 11, 1954

Unfortunately for the vitality of this proposition, the pleadings are destitute of any allegations which would give rise to the conditionally privileged occasions hypothesized by defendants or of any other qualified privilege … With respect to item (d), supra, the amended complaint also clearly indicated that each of the defendants is referred to as having repeated and published the statements complained of to the “numerous persons” mentioned.

Brantley v. Pisaro

42 Cal. App. 4th 1591 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 29, 1996

In partial support for his motion for summary judgment, the defendant presented qualified opinion evidence that he had met the relevant standard of care and that the plaintiff did not suffer from diabetes. … Laudenslayer, supra, 44 Cal.App.3d at p. 511 .) 18 Respondent argues in part that if there was a “defect in the structural integrity of the handrail it was clearly latent and [respondent] would have had no reason to suspect

Thanh Thuy Vo v. City of Garden Grove

9 Cal. Rptr. 3d 257 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 29, 2004

Although the record on appeal does not clearly indicate all of the subsequent proceedings, it appears no hearing was held on the request for preliminary injunction until January 30, 2003. … Plaintiffs may choose those parts of the ordinance most likely to qualify for preliminary relief and reserve their challenge on other parts to the time of trial on the merits.

People v. Gompertz

103 Cal. App. 2d 153 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 28, 1951

Sergeant Whitney, in charge of the vice squad, who qualified as an expert investigator on the subject of bookmaking, testified that accurate time clocks are used by bookmakers in determining the post time of a race; that … It is clearly shown that the business of “electrical appliances” was not being conducted at this establishment and defendants made no indication to the public that they were in that purported legal enterprise.

Lawing v. Faull

227 Cal. App. 2d 23 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 30, 1964

Section 143 of the Charter of the City of Pomona (Stats. 1911, part 2, pp. 1951-1952) provides in part: “If during said thirty days [after adoption of an ordinance] a petition signed by qualified electors of the city equal … Mayor & Council of City of Riverside, 31 Cal.2d 619, 623 [ 191 P.2d 426 ], the court reiterated *32 the rules established in Hopping , and followed in Brown v.

People v. Frye

7 Cal. App. 4th 1148 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 30, 1992

(3) the jury instruction on express malice was erroneous; (4) the court failed to require jury unanimity with respect to an act of robbery for application of the felony-murder rule; (5) the failure to grant testimonial immunity … because he is responsible, and there is some price he has to pay for them. [][] But I am trying to tell you it’s—simply that from all the circumstances available for us to know at this point, all of those circumstances clearly

Stewart v. Flournoy

12 Cal. App. 3d 1021 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 18, 1970

Again, for authority to support its conclusion, it relied upon language contained in Rath: “ ‘[4] Whenever there is in a will a devise in qualified terms but followed by a direction for the devisee to leave the property to … The principles applicable here are clearly set out in In re Kidd’s Estate (1907) 188 N.Y. 274 [ 80 N.E. 924 ], cited in Estate of Sisk, 269 Cal.App.2d 823 [ 75 Cal.Rptr. 549 ].”

California Trial Lawyers Assn. v. Superior Court

187 Cal. App. 3d 575 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 26, 1986

On September 14, the committee recommended to the board of governors that the challenge be rejected and Gwilliam be deemed a qualified candidate for the office of president elect. … Having satisfied the prerequisites established in Palma v. U.S.

Estate of Zahn

16 Cal. App. 3d 106 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 18, 1971

The organization qualifies under its articles of incorporation to receive the testatrix' gifts and to administer them in accordance with the wishes expressed in her will. … "`"Ademption of a specific legacy is the extinction or withdrawal of a legacy in consequence of some act of the testator equivalent to its revocation, or clearly indicative of an intention to revoke.

Zuniga v. Alexandria Care Center, LLC

California Court of Appeal · Aug 12, 2021

Drogin’s opinions establishing Alexandria Care’s Labor Code violations. We agree the court erred in excluding the expert testimony of Dr. … The goal of trial court gatekeeping is simply to exclude ‘clearly invalid and unreliable’ expert opinion.” (Id. at p. 772.) There can be no doubt Dr.

Zuniga v. Alexandria Care Center, LLC

California Court of Appeal · Aug 13, 2021

Drogin’s opinions establishing Alexandria Care’s Labor Code violations. We agree the court erred in excluding the expert testimony of Dr. … The goal of trial court gatekeeping is simply to exclude ‘clearly invalid and unreliable’ expert opinion.” (Id. at p. 772.) There can be no doubt Dr.

University of Southern California v. Bryson

103 Cal. App. 39 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 31, 1929

Upon proceedings duly had an administrator of her estate was duly *44 appointed and qualified. … Under such circumstances, clearly the promise was without consideration and void.

Williams v. Wheeler

23 Cal. App. 619 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 31, 1913

university the statement of his parents in proper form to the effect that they were conscientiously opposed to the practice of vaccination and would not consent to his vaccination, insists that he thereby, being otherwise qualified … By the provisions of this act the university was established and declared to be under the charge and control of a board of directors to be known and styled the Regents of the University of California; and to this body was