Case law

Earl Ranch, Ltd. v. Marchus

60 Cal. App. 2d 379 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 30, 1943

Without this qualifying clause there would have been no ceiling upon the rental to be paid, and yet if we adopt this construction we will have ignored the proviso and will have held that it is superfluous and means nothing … Certain rules of construction which we shall note forbid us to resolve ambiguities in favor of plaintiff to establish the implied obligation for which it contends.

Hansen v. Newegg.com Americas

California Court of Appeal · Jul 31, 2018

Although “voters clearly intended to restrict UCL [and FAL] standing, they just as plainly preserved standing for those who had had business dealings with a defendant and had lost money or property as a result of the defendant … “To satisfy the narrower standing requirements imposed by Proposition 64, a party must now (1) establish a loss or deprivation of money or property sufficient to qualify as injury in fact, i.e., economic injury, and (2) show

Baird v. City of Fresno

97 Cal. App. 2d 336 · California Court of Appeal · May 3, 1950

It is the contention of plaintiff that the trial court erred in finding and determining that plaintiff did not serve in the Fresno fire department a sufficient length of time to qualify for a service pension and that the … These circumstances clearly indicate that both parties to the pension contract placed a definite construction upon the provisions relating to the computation of plaintiff’s time of service.

People v. Soto

74 Cal. App. 3d 267 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 23, 1977

The first ground was qualified by a prior statement to the prosecutor: "You are not being prejudiced one iota. If it is surplusage, you are going to prove it at the point of trial." … Rptr. 732 ].) [2] At the conclusion of the preliminary examination the magistrate ruled: "The evidence in this case clearly establishes the commission of the violation of Penal Code section 209 and further establishes that

People v. Robarge

111 Cal. App. 2d 87 · California Court of Appeal · May 14, 1952

The defendant did not take the witness stand in his own behalf but rested his defense upon testimony by which he sought to establish an alibi. … The fact that a witness may to some extent qualify his testimony as to identification, goes to the weight of such testimony and is addressed to the sound discretion of the triers of fact.

City & County of San Francisco v. Fair Employment & Housing Commission

191 Cal. App. 3d 976 · California Court of Appeal · May 7, 1987

While the framework of title VII clearly envisions that an initial resort to a state administrative agency in an employment discrimination matter does not deprive an individual of the right to pursue a federal title VII claim … We are acutely aware that Black and White firefighters qualified *994 for promotion continue to wait for the City to develop a valid selection procedure for the position ofH-20 lieutenant.

Mesnick v. Caton

183 Cal. App. 3d 1248 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 31, 1986

It seems neither logical nor just that disuse and inactivity should belatedly qualify defendant for a prescriptive easement over plaintiff’s property. … To be entitled *1263 to relief on appeal from the result of an alleged abuse of discretion it must clearly appear that the injury resulting from such a wrong is sufficiently grave to amount to a manifest miscarriage of justice

Bourdieu v. Seaboard Oil Corp.

48 Cal. App. 2d 429 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 11, 1941

The evidence establishes that many wells, sumps, roads, water lines, gas and fuel lines, trap and flow lines were either commenced or completed between March 30, 1935, and March 30, 1938, on the north half of section 30. … A. was obliged to operate section 30 as a separate unit, it would east a greater and additional burden on the property than at present. *436 Appellant called an expert witness who duly qualified as such and testified that

Schnall v. Hertz Corporation

93 Cal. Rptr. 2d 439 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 7, 2000

To forestall an action under the unfair competition law, another provision must actually ‘bar’ the action or clearly permit the conduct. … But there *1163 is an affirmative reason to conclude that the amount of charges imposed for optional services are immune from scrutiny under the UCL.

FilmOn.com v. DoubleVerify

California Court of Appeal · Jul 25, 2017

Further, in view of the “massive amount of attention” paid to FilmOn’s business in the area of copyright infringement, the court concluded DoubleVerify’s reports clearly concerned a matter of interest to the public. … “Courts have adopted these categories as a useful framework for analyzing whether a statement implicates an issue of public interest and thus qualifies for anti-SLAPP protection.”

Stein v. Dept. of Fish and Wildlife CA3

California Court of Appeal · Aug 24, 2016

the individual respondents are entitled to qualified immunity. … Stein also argued the individual respondents are not entitled to “the discretionary immunity defense,” by which we assume he meant “qualified” immunity defense, because respondents “have never been able to show any reasonable

People v. Flores

California Court of Appeal · Apr 22, 2021

Both the carjacking and attempted murder convictions qualified as prior strike offenses (§ 667, subds. … And here, Flores’s carjacking and attempted murder of the victim were clearly based on separate acts.

Kohler v. Kintz

84 Cal. App. 3d 928 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 18, 1978

Collins (Collins), now deceased, intended to establish a Totten trust—a savings account trust with himself as trustortrustee and his sister Alice L. … Hére the evidence of Collins’ intent to establish a Totten trust is uncontradicted, overwhelming.

Environmental Law Foundation v. Beech-Nut Nutrition Corp.

235 Cal. App. 4th 307 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 17, 2015

Murray opined that lead does have a clearly identified safe threshold level; however, the thresholds for some health effects of lead have not been reliably established to date. … established threshold level for lead-induced toxicity had been established.

People v. Hearn

116 Cal. Rptr. 2d 298 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 27, 2002

At trial, Annette R. testified under a grant of immunity. On April 9, 1996, she was 15 years old and living in Barstow with Barbara Chavez. … (See California Rules of Court—Rules 976 and 977.) [1] Annette R. and Serafin were granted immunity for their testimony.

Nielsen v. Milligan

100 Cal. App. 2d 40 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 19, 1950

Chais, a licensed physician and surgeon, duly qualified as an expert witness. … Hardy, 40 Cal.App. 323, 331 [ 180 P. 666 ] : “ ‘Where general allegations of negligence are followed by an enumeration of specific acts, the plaintiff will not be limited to proof of specific acts unless the complaint clearly

People v. Cooper

57 Cal. Rptr. 3d 389 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 6, 2007

established federal law, Cooper is entitled to a retrial on all of the charges against him.” … “Clearly, this was not a final order.” {Ibid., italics omitted.)

Gogadze v. DTSC CA2/4

California Court of Appeal · Sep 25, 2024

He asserted that defendants’ various other claims of immunity did not apply. … Movlay does not have blanket immunity under the Government Claims Act. “When it comes to tort suits against public employees, ‘“‘the rule is liability, immunity is the exception.’”’” (Freeny v.

Snipes v. City of Bakersfield

145 Cal. App. 3d 861 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 10, 1983

injunctive relief alleges that appellant, who is black, applied for employment as a police officer with the Bakersfield Police Department and was tested for the position in December 1978; that although appellant was fully qualified … The law establishes that freedom from job discrimination on specified grounds, including race, is a civil right. (§ 12921.)

In Re Luke M.

132 Cal. Rptr. 2d 907 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 23, 2003

Sibling relationships are clearly a relevant consideration in evaluating a child's emotional well-being. … Jeffrey argues that the social worker's opinion did not provide sufficient evidence on the sibling issue, and that testimony from a qualified expert was necessary.