Case law

Wellpoint Health Networks, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County

59 Cal. App. 4th 110 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 13, 1997

In most cases, this is established by a showing that complaints about the harassment were lodged with the employer. … Bowe’s investigation clearly falls within the purview of attorney activity. Consequently, the court finds that Mr.

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

Prudential Insurance Co. v. Small Claims Court

76 Cal. App. 2d 379 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 8, 1946

The facts giving rise to the controversy are as follows: Appellant is a New Jersey corporation qualified to do an insurance business in California. … He, quite clearly, can appear on behalf of the corporation to defend the action.

People v. Scheer

80 Cal. Rptr. 2d 676 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 22, 1998

(c)(2); count 3) and findings, with respect to counts 1 and 2, that he had suffered a prior felony conviction which qualified as a strike under the “Three Strikes” law (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. … To reach a contrary conclusion would impermissibly immunize the driver from the penal consequences of such breach and encourage scofflaws to violate both the letter and spirit of the law.

People v. Smith

4 Cal. App. 3d 403 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 16, 1970

At the preliminary hearing Janet Earl (Janet) was called as a witness for the People and after refusing to testify on the grounds of possible self-incrimination she was granted immunity pursuant to the provisions of section … A review of the record clearly demonstrates that counsel for defendant elicited sufficient information that could have led only to the inescapable conclusion that the witness was involved in the use of hard narcotics.

People v. Reese

California Court of Appeal · Sep 17, 2015

At bottom, the majority offers only a thinly-reasoned justification to support its extension of precedent beyond that clearly established by the Supreme Court.”].) … The Kennedy court’s aim on the habeas corpus petition was to determine whether the state appellate court’s decision reflected an objectively reasonable interpretation of clearly established United States Supreme Court precedent

Caligari v. Superior Court

98 Cal. App. 3d 725 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 15, 1979

The California Supreme Court clearly indicated that it must in Price v. … J., and Hopper, J., concurred. 1 In the trial court, respondent had argued that informant was a reliable and credible informant because he qualified as a citizen informant.

McCuistion v. County of Tulare CA5

California Court of Appeal · Feb 16, 2022

Plaintiffs appealed, contending they properly alleged that the intersection’s configuration as a two-way stop and its other characteristics qualified as a “concealed trap” or had invited public reliance. … The plaintiff must clearly and specifically set forth ... factual allegations that sufficiently state all required elements of that cause of action. [Citations.]

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.

Kime v. Barnard

144 Cal. App. 3d 246 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 22, 1983

On February 8, 1980, Kime filed a “Petition for Revocation of Probate of Purported Lost Will” (the Petition for Revocation) alleging, inter alia, that the document did not qualify as a will as it failed to recite dispositive … Bergkvist’s testimony thus was damaging to Kime, provided facts not established by other evidence, and may well have been the factor that tipped the scales.

Cruise v. Kroger Co.

California Court of Appeal · Aug 27, 2014

“Under the terms of the Policy, paragraph 7, ‘the “Qualified Arbitrator” must be a retired state or federal judge,’ . . . … and retaliation, as well as her common law claims for wrongful termination in violation of public policy, intentional infliction of emotional distress and defamation, are all “employment-related disputes” and therefore clearly

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.

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

Prue v. Brady Co./San Diego, Inc.

California Court of Appeal · Dec 11, 2015

The California Supreme Court has "established a set of requirements that a policy must satisfy to support a tortious discharge claim. … To establish a cause of action for disability discrimination in violation of FEHA's public policy, a plaintiff must show: "(1) plaintiff suffers from a disability; (2) plaintiff is a qualified individual; and (3) plaintiff

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

Aghaian v. Minassian

234 Cal. App. 4th 427 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 17, 2015

However, all laws must not be in direct conflict with clearly defined Islamic tenets. … Further, Crawson 6 opined that Iranian courts are corrupt and do not guarantee the right to representation by a qualified lawyer.

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.

Leslie O. v. Superior Court

231 Cal. App. 4th 1191 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 25, 2014

Each offered important firsthand information he or she was qualified to provide. … Contrary to Thomas’s argument, Adams does not establish a low watermark which dictates that only evaluators who fall below it should be disqualified and all others should be immunized from removal.

Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California v. Swoap

173 Cal. App. 3d 1187 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 1, 1985

The necessary judicial assumption that section 33.35 is a valid reflection of the will of the Legislature does not, of course, immunize that provision from constitutional scrutiny. … “Birth control,” as that term is used in the family planning act, clearly includes abortion.

Washington v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF SAN DIEGO CTY.

18 Cal. App. 4th 981 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 13, 1993

California Constitution, article I, section 1, establishes the right to "pursu[e] and obtain[] safety." … The new amendment is clearly in conflict with the standards set by the county ordinance.