Case law

Chicken Delight of California, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

35 Cal. App. 3d 841 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 7, 1973

Clearly, however, this situation is the very one which was distinguished in State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Allstate Ins. … To hold otherwise is to completely erase from the policy the qualifying phrase “against the insured,” contained in Clause II (a) . . . .’ Also, as stated in Travelers Ins. Co v. Tymkow, 87 N.J.

People v. Calhoun

13 Cal. Rptr. 3d 166 · California Court of Appeal · May 11, 2004

Defendant had two qualifying prior convictions for forcible rape, in 1989 and 1993. … The Legislature has clearly expressed its intention that an SVPA proceeding be a civil proceeding, and we have found that defendant was accorded all the peremptory challenges to which he was entitled under state law.

Seck v. Foulks

25 Cal. App. 3d 556 · California Court of Appeal · May 15, 1972

not amount to employment of the broker or establish his entitlement to recover a commission for making a sale. … Such qualifying language must appear in the commission agreement itself such as the listing, the deposit receipt, the contract of sale, or escrow instructions.

Consumer Defense Group v. Rental Housing Industry Members

40 Cal. Rptr. 3d 832 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 24, 2006

Another part of the deal was a de facto alliance with Graham & Martin to preserve that immunity. … As the Attorney General noticed, it is an “enterprise that only provides immunity for businesses and remuneration for private attorneys.”

Milo v. Hardin CA3

California Court of Appeal · Jun 4, 2024

(no horse is immune). [¶] But she hasn’t offered, so I think I’ll ask her to pay for our tests.” … Finally, Milo declared that she never posted a video that her horse was immune.

Kolodge v. Boyd

88 Cal. App. 4th 349 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 5, 2001

‘Furthermore, the antideficiency laws were not intended to immunize wrongdoers from the consequences of their fraudulent acts. … Clearly, the subsequent appraisal should have made appellant suspicious, and created a duty to investigate further (see Miller v.

MADAIN v. City of Stanton

185 Cal. App. 4th 1277 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 23, 2010

In his view, although the submission of the application would qualify as an action by the applicant, the mere receipt of that document would not constitute an action by the City. … It clearly makes sense to restrict adult businesses from areas which are an intrinsic draw for children. A permanent church building (e.g., St.

Danger Panda, LLC v. Launiu

10 Cal. App. 5th 502 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 4, 2017

Lawful Occupancy Defendants posit that the fact David cannot be a party to a lease agreement does not preclude him from qualifying as a tenant under the Rent Ordinance because case law establishes that a lawful occupant … Defendants fail to explain how Cobb supports their contention that all lawful occupants of a rental unit qualify as tenants under section 37.2(t).

Sunline Transit Agency v. AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION, LOCAL 1277

189 Cal. App. 4th 292 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 15, 2010

Absent a clear expression of illegality or public policy undermining this strong presumption in favor of private arbitration, an arbitral award should ordinarily stand immune from judicial scrutiny.” (Moncharsh v. … The MTA concluded it could not implement the modifications proposed by the AME and therefore deemed the employee a qualified injured worker.

People v. Lamb

90 Cal. Rptr. 2d 565 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 16, 1999

Appellant contends: (1) both the court and the prosecutor violated the plea agreement and the principles established in People v. … That degree of awareness was clearly absent here. C.

Johnson v. Superior Court

124 Cal. Rptr. 2d 650 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 30, 2002

We therefore conclude that Cryobank qualifies as a “health dispensary,” and thus a “health care provider” as that term is used in section 425.13, subdivision (b). Sims, Rothman and Cryobank. … Specifically, petitioners allege that Sims and Rothman obtained information regarding the donor’s mother and aunt, that they suffered kidney disease, high blood pressure and hearing loss, and that this “clearly signaled the

Barr v. United Methodist Church

90 Cal. App. 3d 259 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 8, 1979

Clearly the present case is secular. … To defer absolutely to authoritative church experts would be to grant immunity to religious organizations in cases which might arise far afield from religious activities with the resultant effect that civil courts would then

Citizens for Jobs & the Economy v. County of Orange

115 Cal. Rptr. 2d 90 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 4, 2002

As clearly stated in DeVita v. … These terms clearly circumscribe the discretion of the Board, but it is not possible to tell to what extent.

Brickell v. Wittmar

175 Cal. App. 2d 190 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 10, 1959

It further clearly appears from a reading of the nine affirmative affidavits supporting the verdict that the jury’s deliberations never passed beyond the question of liability, and that the question of the amount of damages … Since all intendments are in favor of the action taken by the lower court, the affidavits in behalf of the prevailing party are deemed not only to *196 establish the facts directly stated therein, but all facts reasonably

People Ex Rel. Dept. Pub. Wks. v. HOME TRUST INV.

8 Cal. App. 3d 1022 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 23, 1970

Appellants cite no authority for their position. (2) Section 1248 of the Code of Civil Procedure implies and California cases have established that the proper valuation date is the date of the commencement of the action. … Proc., § 1248), and since the state offered to mitigate any damages resulting from delay in construction of the freeway, appellants have clearly failed to show any injustice. (Cf. People v.

Universal Land Co. v. All Persons

172 Cal. App. 2d 739 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 10, 1959

Proc., Stats. 1953, eh. 52, § 6) plaintiff filed an action against all persons to establish title to real property. … said in the Ferguson case, supra, at page 814: “It is clear that if respondents were purchasers for value and without notice, taking their title through the decree of distribution *742 which constitutes a muniment of title immune

Sogawa v. Department of Motor Vehicles

100 Cal. App. 2d 181 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 27, 1950

On the contrary, the section clearly indicates that the Department of Motor Vehicles, in determining whether a “chauffeur’s” license shall issue, must determine whether the applicant is a “chauffeur” within the meaning of … Co., 32 Cal. 472, 474 ; 1 Sutherland on Statutory Construction (3rd ed.) § 1933), and it is a well-established rule of construction that when a word or phrase has been given a particular scope or meaning in one part or portion

Baron v. Sanger Motor Sales

249 Cal. App. 2d 846 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 30, 1967

Permanente Steamship Corp., 129 Cal.App.2d 579, 590 [ 277 P.2d 495 ] (cert. den., 349 U.S. 953 [ 99 L.Ed. 1278 , 75 S.Ct. 882 ]) : “Custom or usage is a matter of fact to be testified to as such by witnesses qualified by … That case, however, is clearly distinguishable.

Marsh v. Mountain Zephyr, Inc.

43 Cal. App. 4th 289 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 6, 1996

In this case the order from which the appeal is taken is clearly collateral to the subject matter of the litigation and is final as to the collateral matter. … Clearly, it is within the trial court’s discretion to determine which “other factors” it will consider.

People v. Harris

234 Cal. App. 4th 671 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 19, 2015

The People clearly articulated application of the good faith exception in the written opposition to defendant’s motion to suppress. … After McNeely, it is now clearly established that the natural dissipation of alcohol or drugs in the bloodstream is not a sufficient exigency to justify a warrantless blood draw, and the People must show, on a case-by-case