Case law

Berroteran v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal · Oct 29, 2019

Indeed, it is not established that Ford’s counsel undertook any re-direct examination at the depositions. … Indeed, it is not established that Ford’s counsel undertook any re-direct examination at the depositions.”

Valley Lumber Co. v. Davis

102 Cal. App. 126 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 20, 1929

Hines, who at the time had resigned as director-general of railroads, and who no longer represented the federal government, established a cause of action against the United States. … If it did not, it clearly appears that such action could not be vitalized by the amended complaint, naming the then qualified officer of the government as the defendant, after the period of the statute of limitations had

Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. Superior Court

5 Cal. Rptr. 3d 182 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 2, 2003

I clearly understand the function of [Welfare and Institutions Code section] 361.4 and agree with it. … The dependency court found that neither the convictions nor the other evidence presented by the Department established a factual basis for removal of the children from Cheryl.

Financial Indemnity Co. v. Hertz Corp.

226 Cal. App. 2d 689 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 28, 1964

Coffin, 20 Cal.2d 457, 462-463 [ 126 P.2d 868 ] [Fact that operator-permittee was accompanied by a friend in violation of rules of the company could not establish that he did not have permission to drive the car, since such … Co., 58 Cal.2d 142 , 154 [ 23 Cal.Rptr. 592 , 373 P.2d 640 ], it was held that: “The pattern is clearly discernible: a desire on the part of the judiciary and the Legislature to not only prevent the astronomical accident

Integrated Healthcare Holdings, Inc. v. Fitzgibbons

44 Cal. Rptr. 3d 517 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 14, 2006

The court noted that it accepted the union’s contentions, every workplace dispute would qualify as a matter of public interest. … This clearly is not the result intended by the Legislature when enacting the anti-SLAPP statute.

California Oak Foundation v. Regents of the University of California

188 Cal. App. 4th 227 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 3, 2010

(In re Corrine W. (2009) 45 Cal.4th 522, 529 [ 87 Cal.Rptr.3d 691 , 198 P.3d 1102 ] [if “ ‘the text alone does not establish the Legislature’s intent clearly, we must turn to other sources for insight, including the provision … (c), 21167.2 [establishing a 30-day limitations period for commencing proceedings to challenge an EIR].)

People v. Bickerstaff

46 Cal. App. 764 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 3, 1920

of malt liquors, regardless of the amount of alcohol contained in them, a crime, and that the words "any other liquor or mixture which contains one per cent or more by volume of alcohol" were not intended to and did not qualify … (To warrant a conviction of the defendant he must be proved to be guilty clearly and conclusively beyond all reasonable doubt, so that there is no reasonable theory upon which he can be innocent when all of the case is considered

Kramer v. Barnes

212 Cal. App. 2d 440 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 29, 1963

judgment for Manuel, the appellate court held not only that there was an inference of negligence on the part of Manuel, but also that under the circumstances the plaintiff was entitled to the proffered instruction based on qualified … The facts presented herein by the defendant’s own affi7 davits clearly show that Barnes’ car collided with the plain *449 tiff’s vehicle ahead of it.

Steinhebel v. Los Angeles Times Communications

24 Cal. Rptr. 3d 351 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 7, 2005

Another employee, called a “verifier,” would call the customer to ensure certain prerequisites were met before a sale could qualify for a commission payout. … Cameron (1967) 247 Cal.App.2d 619, 622, 624 [ 55 Cal.Rptr. 733 ] [“it is clearly the law in California that a salesman is required to repay the excess of advances made over commissions earned when there is an express agreement

County of Sacramento v. Lackner

97 Cal. App. 3d 576 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 12, 1979

When enacted, the Medi-Cal program established two plans for reimbursing counties providing health care services to indigents. … Such petition shall state clearly and concisely: “(a) The substance or nature of the regulation, amendment, or repeal requested; “(b) The reasons for the request; “(c) Reference to the authority of the state agency to take

People v. Blankenship CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · May 6, 2016

Relevant here, Proposition 47 also added a new crime of shoplifting, which is defined as "entering a commercial establishment with intent to commit larceny while that establishment is open during regular business hours, … The People assert that "shoplifting" has long and commonly been understood to encompass only the theft of openly displayed merchandise from commercial establishments.

Christiana v. Plotkin CA2/1

California Court of Appeal · Feb 27, 2014

Thus, the litigation privilege immunizes Dr. … Plotkin therefore is not immunized by the litigation privilege. However, Christiana has not demonstrated that he can establish the elements of malicious prosecution, including prosecution of anything by Dr.

People v. Granville CA3

California Court of Appeal · Jul 25, 2025

When he left the establishment, defendant asked him for a ride and the victim agreed. … The “ ‘ “burden is on the party attacking the sentence to clearly show that the sentencing decision was irrational or arbitrary. [Citation.]

People v. Miller

192 Cal. App. 3d 1505 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 29, 1987

Clearly, Miller’s notes and trust deeds are securities. (See People v. Schock, supra, 152 Cal.App.3d at pp. 385-387.) … Section 25110 makes it unlawful to offer or sell nonexempt securities in an “issuer” transaction unless they have been legally qualified.

San Bernardino County Department of Public Social Services v. Superior Court

232 Cal. App. 3d 188 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 12, 1991

Again, however, the court indicated that this right is qualified and may be overcome by a showing of a compelling state interest. … The first juvenile court in our country was established in 1899 in Illinois. (In re Gault (1967) 387 U.S. 1, 14 [ 18 L.Ed.2d 527 , 87 S.Ct. 1428 ].)

Rains v. Superior Court

150 Cal. App. 3d 933 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 13, 1984

The facts are that petitioners (hereinafter plaintiffs) sued real parties (hereinafter defendants), psychiatrists and the corporations established by them as alter egos, by a second amended complaint alleging counts for fraud … No persuasive reason is advanced by defendants, nor is any apparent to this court, why physicians, to the exclusion of all other persons, should enjoy total immunity from liability where they intentionally deceive another

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

People v. Flores

California Court of Appeal · Mar 29, 2022

One of the other sets of tracks was in close proximity to the body and clearly involved in the “disturbance.” … not establish petitioner is ineligible for resentencing as a matter of law.

San Diego County Department of Social Services v. Jose O.

28 Cal. App. 4th 908 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 29, 1994

Appellant’s second position is that the report prepared by the Department should not have been admitted because it is an unreliable and clearly biased report. … The Department argues that it qualifies as a “fresh complaint.”

Ewing v. Gill Industries, Inc.

3 Cal. App. 4th 601 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 15, 1992

First Federal S. & L. of Rochester (2d Cir. 1989) 869 F.2d 100, 105 , the court stated: “[W]e decline to apply the *611 McDonnell Douglas standard inflexibly, and we now hold expressly what our previous decisions have clearly … Thus, the trial court instructed the jury that Ewing was required to prove that an “important” part of his duties were transferred to younger, less qualified employees. III. Motion for Nonsuit A.