Case law

Twenty-Nine Palms Enterprises v. Cadmus Construction CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · Nov 6, 2015

Cadmus [Construction] cannot raise tribal immunity simply because the contract was performed on tribal land— the defense of sovereign immunity is personal to the tribe and its entities. … It is well established that we need not consider claims raised for the first time at oral argument. (See Animal Protection & Rescue League v. City of San Diego (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 99, 107, fn. 5.)

People v. Moss

188 Cal. App. 3d 268 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 23, 1986

Defendant herein clearly made the requisite showing of the first two elements. … Barbe, who was excused, might also qualify as a senior citizen, it might be inferred, on the other hand, that at least one of the unchallenged jurors was also approaching senior citizen status. 11 Mrs.

Radovich v. Locke-Paddon

35 Cal. App. 4th 946 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 8, 1995

The superior court noted that in this case “there was no executed will which . . . could clearly establish an intent by the testator to benefit the third person. … Radovich responds that his rule should apply only where intent to benefit a particular beneficiary can be clearly established: he “argues for liability only when the . . . breaches of duty and frustrations of testamentary

Lynch Meats of Oakland, Inc. v. City of Oakland

196 Cal. App. 2d 104 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 4, 1961

appear that such necessity no longer exists Í In determining that question we must bear in mind, “The principles governing courts in determining the validity of legislative enactments under the due process of law clause are clearly … Both experts are well qualified.

People v. Peralez

14 Cal. App. 3d 368 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 14, 1971

The photograph was used to establish the identity of the person from whom fingerprints had been taken. … Appellant does not attack the sufficiency of the evidence to establish the fact of prior conviction, he attacks only the admissibility of that evidence.

Patrick Media Group, Inc. v. California Coastal Commission

9 Cal. App. 4th 592 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 15, 1992

Our conclusion that a government agency’s obligation to pay just compensation under sections 5412 and 5412.6 overrides an agency’s tort immunity under section 818.4 is also supported by the rule of statutory construction … We conclude, as we clearly must, that sections 5412 and 5412.6 apply to the Commission. *605 2. The Several Technical Grounds Asserted by the Commission Will Not Prevent Imposition of Liability Under Section 5412.6.

House v. McMullen

9 Cal. App. 664 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 19, 1909

prevent a court from reforming the written evidence of a contract within the statute, by enlarging or restricting the terms or the subject matter of the contract, so as to make it express the real agreement whenever it is clearly … It does appear by sufficient averment that the parties agreed to the terms of the contract as established by the trial court. This is apparent from a consideration of the whole complaint.

Merkle v. Merkle

85 Cal. App. 87 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 13, 1927

The evidence clearly shows that the deceased, up to the time of her death, and that plaintiff up to the time that the instrument was delivered to her, believed that the deed contained a correct description of and conveyed … One of the thoroughly established rules in equity is that said courts will reform contracts, both executed and executory, irre *111 spective of the statute of frauds.

Associated California Loggers, Inc. v. Kinder

79 Cal. App. 3d 34 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 22, 1978

ACL and CSBE presented substantial evidence to the trial court to establish that termination of the agreements will result in the cessation of elaborate administrative and safety programs with an attendant discharge of employees … Clearly the fact that EBI did not exhaust its administrative remedies should not serve to bar ACL and CSBE from obtaining judicial review.

People v. Potter Handy, LLP

California Court of Appeal · Dec 8, 2023

Thus, we independently review the trial court’s dispositive findings—that conduct alleged in the complaint is protected by the litigation privilege, and that no exception to the privilege has been established. 2 … The court found that the Legislature had not clearly evinced an intention to override the litigation privilege in enforcement actions brought by governmental entities under the UCL. (Gallegos, at pp. 961–963.)

Security-First National Bank v. Green

7 Cal. App. 2d 319 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 3, 1935

So much is clearly indicated by the language employed in the opinion in the case of McGarrahan v. … Ed. 469 ], as clearly expressing the law in this respect.

Mercury Casualty Co. v. Hertz Corp.

59 Cal. App. 4th 414 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 31, 1997

The owner of the vehicle, Hertz, had complied with the law by qualifying as a self-insurer. (See Veh. Code, § 16053, subd. (a) [describing qualifications for self-insurer status].) … In resolving that question, we thoroughly examined the legislative history of section 11580.9 and concluded; “Clearly, the language of section 11580.9, subdivision (g) [now subdivision (h)], as well as the legislative history

Richardson v. Los Angeles County Bureau of Adoptions

251 Cal. App. 2d 222 · California Court of Appeal · May 22, 1967

He wrote the letter of January 27, 1966, to the bureau director before hearing any of the evidence and clearly indicated his state of mind by saying, “I believe that . . .this adoption should be nipped in the bud. . . .” … Whatever the circumstances may be, however competent and qualified the prospective adopting parents may be, if they are deaf-mutes, their petition to adopt will be denied.

Kennedy v. Superior Court

51 Cal. Rptr. 3d 637 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 30, 2006

In doing so, we reiterate that Kennedy bears the burden of establishing an abuse of discretion. … Kennedy has failed to show that the broad array of information he is seeking regarding the arrests of potential defense witnesses qualifies as either.

People v. Bishop

202 Cal. App. 3d 273 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 21, 1988

The evidence which satisfies the overt act requirement also qualifies as one proof of defendant's assistance. … Because defendant willfully provided assistance to her son's attempted escape, she is clearly within the incorporation of section 18 by section 4534.

Barkin v. Bd. of Optometry of State of Cal.

269 Cal. App. 2d 714 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 17, 1969

Garrison, supra, 28 Cal.2d 790 , the court held that the medical plan of the plaintiff, organized under section 9201 of the Corporations Code— then section 593a of the Civil Code—was immune from supervision by the Insurance … of such prejudice, since the facts are not *717 really in dispute and the Board’s eventual disagreement with the hearing officer was solely on questions of law which were clearly delineated by his proposed decision. 3 At

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.

Humane Society of the United States v. State Board of Equalization

61 Cal. Rptr. 3d 277 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 21, 2007

Thereafter, definitions are provided for the terms “ ‘[qualified person’ ” and “ ‘[f]arm equipment and. machinery.’ ” (§ 6356.5, subd. (b)(1), (2).) … The Brown court then examined the legislative background of the DTPAF program and determined that it did not “establish a continuous appropriation.” (Brown, supra, 30 Cal.App.4th at p. 1283 .)

Am. Medical Response of Inland Empire v. County of San Bernardino CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · Dec 18, 2025

The Proposal Review Committee (Committee) will evaluate all proposals based on the evaluation criteria score sheet as established in this RFP. … unless they acted pursuant to ‘ “clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed” ’ state policy.

Suarez v. City of Corona

229 Cal. App. 4th 325 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 29, 2014

The City informed Appellants that the evidence did not establish that the City had notice of a dangerous condition. … The City argued there was no dangerous condition, it did not have actual or constructive notice, and design immunity applied.