Case law

State of Calif. Ex Rel. Dept. v. General Ins.

13 Cal. App. 3d 853 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 2, 1970

Continental Casualty Co., supra, has been substantially qualified by recent court decisions, and gives the following quotation from Western Title Guar. Co. v. … The genesis of the cause of action in the abstract can be said to be sections 4200-4205, establishing the requirement for a bond and the terms thereof.

Sierra Pacific Industries v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

45 Cal. Rptr. 3d 550 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 30, 2006

SPI disputed the need for continuing treatment and provided Chatham with the paperwork to select a panel-qualified medical examiner (QME) for evaluation pursuant to the provisions of Labor Code section 4062. … “It is an established canon of interpretation that statutes are not to be given a retrospective operation unless it is clearly made to appear that such *1506 was the legislative intent. [Citations.]”

Threlkeld v. Ranger Insurance

156 Cal. App. 3d 23 · California Court of Appeal · May 17, 1984

policy, we must apply the general principle that any doubt as to the policy’s meaning must be resolved against the insurer, and any exception to the performance of the basic underlying insuring obligations must be stated clearly … The pilot involved was duly licensed and fully qualified in every respect, but he had inadvertently allowed his medical certificate to expire about 25 days prior to the accident.

Gatto v. County of Sonoma

120 Cal. Rptr. 2d 550 · California Court of Appeal · May 23, 2002

Officers Badger and Brazis were also dismissed from the action, as the court found them entitled to immunity under Government Code sections 820.4 and 820.6. … Section 51.10, subdivision (a), states that section 51 “shall be construed to prohibit a business establishment from discriminating in the sale or rental of housing based upon age,” but permits such an establishment to “establish

Burdick v. Board of Retirement

200 Cal. App. 3d 1248 · California Court of Appeal · May 2, 1988

(Italics added.) 3 IV “The right to a pension is among those rights clearly ‘favored’ by the law.” (Hittle v. … Code), title 2, section 7293.8, subdivision (d), adopted in 1980, provides: “ . . . it is no defense to assert that a qualified handicapped individual has a condition or a disease with a future risk, so long as the condition

P. v. Sanchez CA4/3

California Court of Appeal · Mar 20, 2013

Prior to the amendment of former section 194, a death had to occur within three years and a day of the criminal act to qualify as murder. … It qualifies as a violent felony because Rodriguez used a firearm in committing the offense.

D'Egidio v. City of Santa Clarita

4 Cal. App. 5th 515 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 24, 2016

many provisions of the Act that expressly allowed counties and cities to enact ordinances regulating billboards or required 18 compliance with those ordinances, “the Legislature clearly … It assumes that local public entity determinations of nuisance are absolutely immune from judicial scrutiny, such that even a transparently flimsy, transparently pretextual finding of nuisance would be enough to immunize

Almond Alliance of Cal. v. Fish and Game Com.

California Court of Appeal · May 31, 2022

Code,1 § 2050 et seq.) directs the Fish and Game Commission (Commission) to “establish a list of endangered species and a list of threatened species.” (§ 2070.) … Clearly, because the appellate court in W. W.

Kaatz v. CITY OF SEASIDE

49 Cal. Rptr. 3d 95 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 20, 2006

It may initiate an action in rem to establish the validity of the matter. (§ 860.) … Alternatively, the agency may do nothing, in which case the act will become immune from attack if no interested person brings a proceeding to establish the act’s validity or invalidity within 60 days. (See Friedland v.

People v. Vasquez

94 Cal. App. 3d 42 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 13, 1979

This evidence clearly shows flight; it may demonstrate consciousness of guilt. (People v. Johnson, 271 Cal.App.2d 616, 623 [ 76 Cal.Rptr. 768 ]; People v. Hill, 67 Cal.2d 105, 120 [ 60 Cal.Rptr. 234 , 429 P.2d 586 ].) … did not provide for good time credit to be earned during presentence detainment and therefore was attacked on the ground it violated equal protection by discriminating against state prisoners unable to afford or otherwise qualify

Angol v. Los Angeles Community College Dist. CA2/5

California Court of Appeal · Mar 3, 2016

held qualify as jurisdictional—both in the fundamental sense, and as acts in excess of jurisdiction: ‘[C]onvicting an unrepresented accused or prosecuting a person who has been granted immunity from such prosecution. … (Recommendations Relating to Sovereign Immunity, supra, p. 1016.)

Miller v. Nestande

192 Cal. App. 3d 191 · California Court of Appeal · May 28, 1987

Miller does not have the dedication to duty, to his country, or to a sense of service which would qualify him for any public office. “(9) We are not politically active as a group. … In each of those cases, the court required the plaintiffs to establish they had the ability at trial to clearly and convincingly prove the statements were published with knowledge they were false or with reckless disregard

North American Chemical Co. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County

59 Cal. App. 4th 764 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 1, 1997

Abuse of discretion exists when the trial court has committed substantial error which is clearly prejudicial. … Defendants and each of them held themselves out to the general public, including [North American], as qualified and equipped to bag, containerize and transport bulk chemical products.

People v. Ross

66 Cal. Rptr. 3d 438 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 28, 2007

(b)-(i)), one of which also qualified as a prison prior under Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (c), and one of which also qualified as a serious felony under Penal Code section 667, subdivision (a). … He has clearly informed his opponent, by either words or conduct, that he or she wants to stop fighting; and “3.

Patton v. Governing Board

77 Cal. App. 3d 495 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 8, 1978

That he was eligible to retire for disability is irrefutably established by the fact that he did retire for disability. … Therefore, to separate him from the service for loss of the *502 certificate is clearly to “separate because of disability a member otherwise eligible to retire for disability.”

White v. Cridlebaugh

175 Cal. App. 4th 1535 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 29, 2009

Also, White testified that JC Master Builders, Inc., substantially exceeded the budget that he, White, had established for site preparation. … (c).) (2) Under section 7068.2, if the qualifier is disassociated from the licensed entity, the entity has 90 days to replace the qualifier.

John Norton Farms, Inc. v. Todagco

124 Cal. App. 3d 149 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 1, 1981

It is also a fundamental rule that the motion should state the precise grounds on which it is made, with the defects in the plaintiffs case clearly and particularly indicated. … After all, the question of whether plaintiff used the product called Tenoran “outside its label” so as to make applicable the statutory immunity provided by section 12855 of the Food and Agricultural Code would be a question

Estate of Sapp

California Court of Appeal · Jun 11, 2019

However, the court concluded the evidence supported removal of the executor because he “was ‘otherwise not qualified.’” … Although removal of a personal representative for embezzlement or fraud clearly requires an affirmative showing of moral wrongdoing, and we assume intentional wrongdoing by an administrator will normally establish mismanagement

People v. Crawford

253 Cal. App. 2d 524 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 14, 1967

Clearly, any harm which might have possibly resulted from the remark could have been cured by an appropriate admonition. … In fact, such argument is clearly prohibited by the more recent decision of the California Supreme Court in People v.

Smallwood v. Smallwood

226 Cal. App. 2d 593 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 21, 1964

[ 34 Cal.Rptr. 663 ], holds: “ ‘In decisions too numerous to mention, it has been said that the trial judge having heard the evidence, observed the witnesses, their demeanor, attitude, candor or lack of candor, is best qualified … of a showing that the welfare of the child clearly requires it.