Case law

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

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.

Philipson & Simon v. Gulsvig

64 Cal. Rptr. 3d 504 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 29, 2007

As such, she contends it would qualify for protection under the anti-SLAPP law. … They are clearly at the heart of this case.

Hammond v. Agran

90 Cal. Rptr. 2d 876 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 9, 1999

It is now established that the word does not encompass attacks on one’s opponents. (See Clark v. Burleigh (1992) 4 Cal.4th 474, 488-489 [ 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 455 , 841 P.2d 975 ].) … “I led the Council in drafting Irvine’s General Plan—a blueprint for the future that clearly prohibited a commercial airport at El Toro.

Jones v. Toyota Motor Co.

198 Cal. App. 3d 364 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 2, 1988

Because of a demonstrated relationship between blood alcohol level, reaction time and coordination, the Legislature has established rebuttable presumptions of whether a defendant is under the influence for purposes of the … In carving out this exception to the general rule of civil immunity, the Legislature did not mean to create this *370 anomalous result. (See Strang v.

Salto v. Empire Transportation Services CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · Jul 31, 2023

” influenced its causation finding do not establish prejudice. … MHC Colony Park, L.P. (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 601, 615 [plaintiffs’ contention “they ‘clearly were prejudiced by . . . error’ in [jury] instructions” did not establish prejudice]; Century Surety Co. v.

Woody's Group, Inc. v. City of Newport Beach

233 Cal. App. 4th 1012 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 29, 2015

There was a paragraph in Cohan qualifying its conclusion. Not surprisingly, Newport Beach relies on that paragraph in this appeal. … The Newport Beach Municipal Code clearly does not allow for city council members bringing appeals from city planning commission decisions to – literally – themselves.

Schlumberger Limited v. Superior Court

115 Cal. App. 3d 386 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 28, 1981

Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 390, 392-393 [ 168 Cal.Rptr. 589 ]: “Clearly, in an attorney breach case this exception applies only where the alleged breach is by the attorney from whom the information is sought. … III Code of Civil Procedure section 2016, subdivision (b), establishes a qualified privilege against discovery of general work product of an attorney, and an absolute privilege against discovery of writings reflecting an

California Emergency Physicians Medical Group v. PacifiCare

4 Cal. Rptr. 3d 583 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 5, 2003

The term “delegate” has a specific meaning for licensees like health care service plans, which is expressed in the context of the “well-established rule of nondelegable dut[y] of licensees.” … A third party may qualify as a beneficiary under a contract where the contracting parties must have intended to benefit that third party and such intent appears on the terms of the contract. [Citation.]

People v. Cervantes

9 Cal. App. 5th 569 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 9, 2017

Clear intent, clearly expressed, is decisive. … Null (Iowa 2013) 836 N.W.2d 41, 71 (Null) [52.5 years is de facto life sentence even though evidence “does not clearly establish that [the defendant’s] prison term is beyond his life expectancy,” but rather may “come within

Jerred H. v. Contra Costa County Children & Family Services Bureau

17 Cal. Rptr. 3d 481 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 16, 2004

However, the wisdom of qualifying the present finality of a section 366.26 order in such a manner is for the Legislature to evaluate. … The petition, which requested that the trial court revoke the prior termination order, is clearly without legal support.

Economy v. Sutter East Bay Hospitals

California Court of Appeal · Feb 4, 2019

The East Bay Group’s coverage responsibilities include, among others, hiring qualified physicians and providing a schedule under which physicians staff the departments. … As the trial court concluded, the language in the agreement does not clearly state that the East Bay Group peer review committee “is responsible for protecting the full panoply of rights guaranteed physicians under sections

Family Health Centers of San Diego v. State Dept. of Health Care Service

California Court of Appeal · Oct 29, 2021

This case concerns the determination of a reasonable reimbursement rate for a federally qualified health center (FQHC) participating in the Medi-Cal program. … For example, the contracts involving San Diego State University Research Foundation clearly show that a substantial percentage of the subcontractor’s total compensation was related to matters involving collaboration and communication

People v. Superior Court of Orange County

1 Cal. App. 5th 892 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 25, 2016

a litigant uncontrolled power to dislodge without reason or for an undisclosed reason, an admittedly qualified judge from the trial of a case in which forsooth the only real objection to him might be that he would be fair … The Supreme Court condemned blanket challenges, but nonetheless concluded that abuse of section 170.6 did not “vitiate[] the statute” because “ ‘the Legislature clearly foresaw that the peremptory challenge procedure would

Turman v. Turning Point of Central California, Inc.

191 Cal. App. 4th 53 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 23, 2010

FEHA establishes liability where nonemployees sexually harass an employee and the employer does not take action to alleviate the harassment. … In Freitag , the defendant argued that “prisons, due to their distinctive character and problems, and in particular their ‘inherently hostile environment,’ [should be] immune from lawsuits by correctional officers arising

Vivian v. Labrucherie

214 Cal. App. 4th 267 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 7, 2013

“Unlawful or criminal activities do not qualify as protected speech or petition activities under the anti-SLAPP statute. [Citations.] … First, the agreement on which plaintiff relies does not clearly prohibit the conduct that plaintiff challenges.

Ayala v. Dawson

California Court of Appeal · Aug 4, 2017

The party asserting collateral estoppel bears the burden of establishing these requirements.” … The agreement was clearly labeled ‘RESIDENTIAL LEASE WITH OPTION TO PURCHASE (CALIFORNIA SHORT FORM)’, established that Petitioner would pay monthly rent of $2,700, indicated that Petitioner would pay nonrefundable option

Citicorp North America, Inc. v. Franchise Tax Board

100 Cal. Rptr. 2d 509 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 1, 2000

whose resolution was not clearly foreshadowed, [citation].” … The SBE decision in Huffy clearly established a new principle of law and overruled past precedent on which taxpayers relied.

People v. Falcon

California Court of Appeal · Jul 13, 2023

upper term sentence must remain legal under federal and state law; and it must pass Gutierrez’s clearly indicated test. … We are unaware of any published authority holding one or two prior convictions qualify as “numerous” for purposes of California Rules of Court, rule 4.421(b)(2). (Cf. People v.