Case law

Bolger v. Amazon.com, LLC

California Court of Appeal · Aug 13, 2020

In one category are the products Amazon itself selects, buys from manufacturers or distributors, and sells to consumers at a price established by Amazon. … The appellate court concluded, “Clearly, Perry & Whitelaw was a distributor within the Restatement definition of the term seller for the 22 purpose of the application of the doctrine

Lopez v. County of Los Angeles CA2/1

California Court of Appeal · Jan 7, 2025

“A mandatory duty is created only when an enactment requires an act that is clearly defined and not left to the public entity’s discretion or judgment. [Citation.] … and the doctrine of sovereign immunity”].)

Coast Plaza Doctors Hospital v. Blue Cross of California

173 Cal. App. 4th 1179 · California Court of Appeal · May 11, 2009

Because Patient X's group health plan qualified as an employee benefit plan subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA; 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq.), the trial court sustained Blue Cross's demurrer … concluded that the deemer clause applied without considering whether the plans were self-funded, we note that neither the district court nor the Ninth Circuit had the benefit of the Supreme Court's decision in FMC which clearly

People v. Smith

120 Cal. Rptr. 2d 185 · California Court of Appeal · May 1, 2002

[^Q However, a parent who willfully inflicts unjustifiable punishment is not immune from either civil liability or criminal prosecution.” (Id. at p. 1050, italics omitted.) … The court noted that express language of that statute required that each qualifying factor be pleaded and proven and held that the trial court could not rely upon an unpleaded factor to impose the enhancement.

Weseloh Family Ltd. Partnership v. K.L. Wessel Construction Co.

22 Cal. Rptr. 3d 660 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 21, 2004

This was an important transaction requiring specialized skill, and defendant clearly was not qualified to undertake it. His conduct was not only negligent but was also highly improper. … Such conduct should be discouraged and not protected by immunity from civil liability, as would be the case if plaintiff, the only person who suffered a loss, were denied a right of action.” (Ibid., fn. omitted.)

Murphy v. Allstate Insurance

83 Cal. App. 3d 38 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 21, 1978

Both the circumstances and the statements of the trial court establish that summary judgment was granted Allstate on the basis of two statutes of limitations. … first cause of action, we would be required to determine whether Harlow’s proximate cause reasoning would be applicable and controlling, but this cause of action includes other allegations of fraudulent misrepresentation clearly

White v. State of California

21 Cal. App. 3d 738 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 2, 1971

The estate granted by a deed cannot be limited or qualified by oral testimony. [Citations.] … Figure One, q.v., and other early days surveys in evidence, clearly establish the river’s low tide line, at the side of its main channel, to be a sweeping gently curved line, wholly unlike the surveyor’s serrated line at

Uhler v. City of Encinitas

227 Cal. App. 3d 795 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 13, 1991

On January 1, 1988, the planning commission recommended that any of the proposed alternatives, with mitigation measures, would qualify for a negative declaration. … Citing Vehicle Code sections 21100, subdivision (d), 21350 et seq., and 21400, chapter 14.12.020 authorizes the city council to establish by resolution locations for traffic control devices.

Searle v. City of Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board

197 Cal. App. 3d 1251 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 26, 1988

As Landlords surmise this is an uphill battle, given their apparent failure to make any attempt to ascertain whether, despite the clearly contrary language of section ll.h., permanently lost AGA’s might nevertheless be recaptured … It is disingenuous—to put it kindly—to assert they are being asked to qualify individually for “duly passed AGA’s” which other “registered complying landlords” automatically receive, when at the time these particular AGA’

Specht v. Keitel

190 Cal. App. 2d 332 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 21, 1961

In support of appellant’s contentions with reference to the validity of the assignment, appellant cites several presumptions which would support his position. 1 It is of course established in this state that presumptions … I am impressed that from the type of pleadings and clearly from the type of the pretrial order that everyone was on notice that there was a claim of forgery in this case.

Titus v. Superior Court

23 Cal. App. 3d 792 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 25, 1972

The Restiro,ro-o , speaking -of tiro, fexsír: of fee child’s physical presence in the slrow o:ti *798 that the courts of that state “have direct access to the child and may be most qualified to decide what will best redound … In cases where the individual does business, i.e., conducts activities of sufficient intensity to amount to the doing of business in the state, the state clearly may exercise jurisdiction.

People v. Miller

California Court of Appeal · Jun 27, 2025

In his supplemental brief, Miller contends that he qualifies for relief because he was charged with felony murder, which is all that is required under section 1172.6, subdivision (a)(1). … We apply two well-established canons of statutory interpretation in reaching this conclusion.

Service Employees International Union v. County of Los Angeles

225 Cal. App. 3d 761 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 27, 1990

The county does not screen or qualify prospective providers. … “The interpretation and applicability of a statute is clearly a question of law for determination by the trial court in the initial instance.” (Beck v. Piatt (1972) 24 Cal.App.3d 611, 615 [ 101 Cal.Rptr. 236 ].)

Energy Ins. Mutual Ltd. v. Ace American Ins. Co.

California Court of Appeal · Aug 10, 2017

Food Pro‘s evidence established that ―it did not design or direct the removal‖ of the equipment ―nor did it direct Pettigrew‘s actions‖ at the time of the accident ―as part of its professional services.‖ (Ibid.) … Despite EIM‘s contentions to the contrary, the record establishes that Kinder Morgan did more than just passively own the pipeline.

Versaci v. Superior Court

26 Cal. Rptr. 3d 92 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 21, 2005

This evaluation will be based on overall performance and mutually agreed upon goals and objectives established each year prior to July 1 and will also include a mid-term progress meeting. … To qualify for protection under the exemption, however, the documents sought need not contain “intimate details” or “highly personal” information.

People v. Zepeda

105 Cal. Rptr. 2d 187 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 20, 2001

Detective Roecker is qualified to identify the caliber of an expended bullet based on his experience reloading ammunition, competitive shooting and police work. … Here, defendant committed an unprovoked murder, for the apparent purpose of establishing himself within a street gang, and to establish the gang’s strength in the community.

People v. Turner CA1/4

California Court of Appeal · Dec 30, 2013

The jury clearly found incredible appellant’s version of the events. On this record, it is inconceivable that he, representing himself, would have achieved a more favorable result. … The prosecutor submitted a written immunity statement and based on this statement Romeo was granted use and derivative immunity.

Allen v. City of Sacramento

California Court of Appeal · Mar 6, 2015

Lockheed Martin Corp. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 592 and Qualified Patients Assn. v. … It may not be issued if the underlying cause of action is not established.’ ”]; Camp v.

Curia v. Civil Service Commission

126 Cal. App. 3d 994 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 21, 1981

The reasonable inference established by this letter is that Ms. … Clearly this logic is inapplicable in the present case.

Deschene v. Pinole Point Steel Co.

90 Cal. Rptr. 2d 15 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 29, 1999

A prima facie case for discrimination on grounds of physical disability under the FEHA requires plaintiff to show: (1) he suffers from a disability; (2) he is otherwise qualified to do his job; and, (3) he was subjected to … The logical implication of PPS’s argument is that the section only provides immunity for an employee to appear as a witness, but if the subpoenaed employee testifies in a manner which is adverse to his employer he may be