Case law

The Association of Deputy District Attorneys etc. v. Gascon

California Court of Appeal · Jun 2, 2022

Our role here is to interpret the statute[s] [as they are written], not to establish policy. … Poizner, supra, 187 Cal.App.4th at p. 597 [a statute or ordinance must clearly define the specific duties or course of conduct a governing body must take for that course of conduct to become mandatory].)

M.M. v. Koinonia Foster Homes CA4/2

California Court of Appeal · Mar 14, 2022

The SAC does not clearly identify which test M.M. relies on to support her contention that Koinonia acted as a state actor, but it alleges that Koinonia “participates in a joint action with” the County and “fulfills a public … We therefore address only whether the SAC alleges sufficient facts that Koinonia’s conduct qualifies as state action under the public function and joint action tests.

Hoffart v. Southern Pacific Co.

33 Cal. App. 2d 591 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 30, 1939

The last two instructions very clearly set forth the duty of a guest. … It was satisfied that there was evidence sufficient to establish liability upon the part of Honig.

Centeno v. Roseville Community Hospital

107 Cal. App. 3d 62 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 6, 1979

. *67 The contract was introduced into evidence and the testimony further establishes its execution and performance. … Barnett (1959) 52 Cal.2d 154, 160 [ 338 P.2d 907 ].) *68 The contract clearly specifies the rights of the parties and, although not setting forth a definite termination date, clearly provides for a year-to-year term.

Doe 2 v. Superior Court (Avongard Products)

1 Cal. App. 5th 1300 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 2, 2016

Words which standing alone may reasonably be understood as defamatory may be so explained or qualified by their context as to make such an interpretation unreasonable. … So too, words which alone are innocent 11 may in their context clearly be capable of a defamatory meaning and may be so understood.

People v. Dubrawski CA1/5

California Court of Appeal · Mar 23, 2016

Nickel (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1297, 1300 & fn. 2 [issue not clearly raised on appeal will not be addressed on the merits].) 7 error was harmless. … The plain language of the MMP immunizes collectives from criminal prosecution simply for “cultivation” (§ 11362.775, subd. (a)) and “distribution” (see § 11362.765, subd.

Neville v. CHUDACOFF

73 Cal. Rptr. 3d 383 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 12, 2008

Civil Code section 47 has been used to interpret similar language in the anti-SLAPP statute [citation], we reject the broad conclusion that conduct deemed communicative for purposes of Civil Code section 47 automatically qualifies … "Thus, it has been established for well over a century that a communication is absolutely immune from any tort liability if it has `"some relation"' to judicial proceedings." (Ibid.)

Ross v. Roberts

222 Cal. App. 4th 677 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 23, 2013

A defendant meets its burden on summary judgment by establishing a complete defense to the plaintiff‟s causes of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).) … Roberts‟s work clearly added new expression. Comedy III‟s “subsidiary inquiry” also supports application of the First Amendment defense.

Wanland v. Los Gatos Lodge, Inc.

230 Cal. App. 3d 1507 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 5, 1991

Clearly, the compensatory damage instructions set forth an exclusively contractual measure of damages. … In order to establish a claim for interference with contract, a plaintiff must plead and prove (1) a valid and existing contract between plaintiff and a third party; (2) defendant’s knowledge of the contract; (3) defendant

Edgerly v. City of Oakland

211 Cal. App. 4th 1191 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 12, 2012

As we shall explain, Edgerly is unable to establish a prima facie case of retaliation. … (E.D.N.Y. 2008) 550 F.Supp.2d 319, 330 [“In order for employees in human resources positions to claim retaliation they need to first clearly establish that they were engaged in protected activities other than the general

People v. Dealba

242 Cal. App. 4th 1142 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 7, 2015

Ochoa (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1199, 1206), the evidence established the following. … ‘It has long been established that “the least touching” may constitute battery.

People v. Butler

212 Cal. App. 4th 404 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 21, 2012

Clearly, applying this test, the jury was entitled to conclude the information not disclosed by defendant was material. … There is overwhelming evidence establishing that the supposed safe investments marketed by defendant to elderly, unsophisticated investors were extremely risky at best (and Ponzi schemes at worst).

Cain v. Adoption Agency of the Tulare County Welfare Department

54 Cal. App. 3d 1127 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 30, 1976

We recognize that the continuity of the environment and the trauma to a young child caused by separation from its established home are matters of serious consideration in adoption cases. … Clearly, the letter did not, as a matter of law, prove that Lisa’s welfare was in jeopardy unless appellants were given the opportunity to file a specific application to adopt that child. *1134 While we have no alternative

Fort Mojave Indian Tribe v. California Department of Health Services

38 Cal. App. 4th 1574 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 5, 1995

But such speculation does not establish a change of the project or a deficiency in its EIR. … The Supreme Court has instructed that the Guidelines are to be afforded great weight by the courts, unless clearly unauthorized or erroneous under CEQA. (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v.

In re J.M.

California Court of Appeal · Jan 24, 2020

An addendum report explained that the Department had been unable to find a qualified placement for J.M. because of his need for subacute care, and the regional center had reached out to care facilities in Stanislaus County … Custody determinations in dependency proceedings are “committed to the sound discretion of the juvenile court,” and such rulings “should not be disturbed on appeal unless an abuse of discretion is clearly established.”

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.

Paulson v. Abdelnour

51 Cal. Rptr. 3d 575 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 30, 2006

The transfer does not violate the First Amendment establishment clause or article I, section 4 establishment clause. … The text of 0-19378 states: “Introduction and adoption of an Ordinance submitting to the qualified voters of the City of San Diego at a Special Municipal Election, one Proposition regarding whether or not the City shall donate

Siminoff v. Jas. H. Goodman & Co. Bank

18 Cal. App. 5 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 8, 1912

No reason can be suggested why banks in this state should enjoy such immunity. … Before we should feel authorized to hold that the rule laid down in section 3302 was intended to furnish the only measure of damage in such a case as we. have *15 here, it should be made to appear clearly from the terms of

People v. Romo

47 Cal. App. 3d 976 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 9, 1975

Kim Treharne was granted immunity to testily at the trial. Prior to trial, a motion to sever, pursuant to section 1098 of the Penal Code, was made by DeWitt. … Under circumstances where no clear evidence of joint action, or other evidence under which the conviction could clearly stand, is presented, the court established the procedures to be followed: “When the prosecution proposes

Bates v. State Board of Equalization

275 Cal. App. 2d 388 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 1, 1969

Tregoning Cape, a nonveteran, both taxpayers, brought this action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated who do not qualify for the veterans’ exemption, seeking writ of mandate to compel Donald P. … Continuous administrative interpretation of a constitutional provision is a persuasive force in its construction, and courts generally will not depart from such construction unless it is clearly erroneous or unauthorized.