Case law

County of Imperial v. Superior Court

152 Cal. App. 4th 13 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 14, 2007

The County takes the position that neither Metropolitan nor Coachella qualify as “recipients of approval” under the statute’s language. … However, as Coachella points out, a common litigation objective is not enough to establish adequacy of representation by the named parties.

Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Ass'n v. City of San Diego

84 Cal. Rptr. 2d 804 · California Court of Appeal · May 19, 1999

Proposition 218 clearly does not state a constitutional definition of assessment for all constitutional and statutory provisions. … (“assessments” on businesses pursuant to the California Tourism Marketing Act, established by industry category); Health and Safety Code section 1356 (“assessments” for administrative costs of heath care service plans, assessed

Rossiter v. Benoit

88 Cal. App. 3d 706 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 23, 1979

“Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act clearly creates rights and imposes obligations different from any which would exist at common law in the absence of statute. … Code of Civil Procedure section 338, subdivision 1 establishes a three-year statute of limitations period for “An action upon a liability created by statute . . . .”

Ortega Rock Quarry v. Golden Eagle Insurance

46 Cal. Rptr. 3d 517 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 27, 2006

Under the principle of ejusdem generis, “[p]articular expressions qualify those which are general.” (Civ. Code, § 3534.) … In context, the term ‘including’ clearly signifies that the ensuing list is not one of limitation.” (Ibid.)

McEwen v. New York Life Insurance

42 Cal. App. 133 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 9, 1919

This conclusion, no doubt, was due to an instruction given by the court, which we deem clearly erroneous. … The court, after referring to the accident which the evidence established, stated to the jury: “No mention is made of this by the deceased in this application.

City of San Jose v. Carlson

57 Cal. App. 4th 1348 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 25, 1997

The City correctly notes that the Board recognizes “continuity” as an additional consideration bearing on the establishment of durability. … For example, housing on a government employer’s property has qualified as a taxable possessory interest, even where such residence is a condition of employment. (See McCaslin *1360 v.

Jamulians Against the Casino v. Dept. of Transportation CA3

California Court of Appeal · Mar 30, 2016

Other than possibly slowing the pace of construction traffic at the interchange (not to mention the motorists using the highway), JAC thus fails to establish that the encroachment permit is a necessary prerequisite for these … Without clearly identifying exactly what could be done, JAC contends Caltrans could nonetheless order modification or even remediation of the larger project. (E.g., Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v.

Hsu v. Mt. Zion Hospital

259 Cal. App. 2d 562 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 28, 1968

This distinction has been clearly recognized by the decisions. (See In re Zanetti, supra, 34 Cal.2d at p. 143 ; Kellogg v. Cochran, supra, 87 Cal. at pp. 197, 199; Knorp v. … The interpreter chosen by the court was clearly qualified to speak Mandarin, and the mere fact of his having been employed on occasion by one of the defendants does not automatically disqualify him, especially when plaintiffs

Stone Street Capital, LLC v. California State Lottery Commission

165 Cal. App. 4th 109 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 26, 2008

Code, § 3534 [“Particular expressions qualify those which are general.”].) … The court then concluded that section 4658 was a general provision establishing the amount of compensation benefits, while section 4750 “may be viewed as a specific rule limiting the benefits available.” ( 16 Cal.3d at p.

Villanueva v. Fidelity National Title CA6

California Court of Appeal · Nov 15, 2021

immunity under section 12414.26.9 The court reasoned that “[s]ection 12414.26 confers immunity for an ‘act done, action taken, or agreement made pursuant to the authority conferred by Article 5.5 . . .’ … Our Supreme Court clarified in Kwikset, supra, 51 Cal.4th at page 322 that standing under the UCL requires a party to “(1) establish a loss or deprivation of money or property sufficient to qualify as injury in fact, i.e.

Hailstone v. Martinez

169 Cal. App. 4th 728 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 23, 2008

Moreover, the malice necessary to defeat a qualified privilege is “actual malice.” … That prong is clearly inapplicable here.

People v. Avitia

24 Cal. Rptr. 3d 887 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 28, 2005

A properly qualified gang expert may, where appropriate, testify to a wide variety of matters, including gang graffiti. (People v. … Cardenas, supra, at pp. 903-905 [admission of evidence that witnesses and defendant were members of the same gang was an abuse of discretion where other evidence had amply established the witnesses and defendant were friends

People v. Mathews

91 Cal. App. 3d 1018 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 17, 1979

Clifton (1972) 32 Ohio App.2d 284 [61 Ohio Ops.2d 439, 290 N.E.2d 921, 923 ], as follows: “Clearly, one who kills in self-defense does so without the mens rea that otherwise would render him culpable of the homicide. … In particular, defendant cites CALJIC No. 5.13 for the proposition that to qualify as a justifiable homicide, the “person killed” must have been the unlawful aggressor.

Jegen v. Berger

77 Cal. App. 2d 1 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 25, 1946

It is a well established rule that it is the duty of a person injured by wrongful act of another to exercise reasonable care to avoid loss or to minimize the resulting damages. … If no such basis exists, as in cases where the establishment of a business is prevented, it may be necessary to deny such recovery. (California P. Mfg. Co., Inc. v.

Rodriguez v. City of San Jose CA6

California Court of Appeal · Sep 28, 2023

its “decision to perform cleanup and repairs at the zoo was clearly a discretionary decision ‘to perform or not to perform any act to promote the public health of the community by preventing disease or controlling the communication … This evidence was sufficient to meet City’s initial burden of proof to establish that its decision to undertake cleanup and repairs at the Zoo in the aftermath of the flood was a discretionary decision “to perform or not

American Home Insurance v. Travelers Indemnity Co.

122 Cal. App. 3d 951 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 28, 1981

The intent of Travelers and Davis to name only Distributors as an additional insured clearly appears on the face of the coverage declaration. … Sales not only fails to qualify as a party to either the insurance agreement or processing contract, but there also was no assignment of any contract right from Distributors to Sales indicated by the record.

Tensfeldt v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.

77 Cal. Rptr. 2d 691 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 20, 1998

Clearly the conduct intended to be punished is the fraudulent misrepresentation. … The clause ‘any compensation’ in section 1871.5 is qualified in the same section to mean specific compensation sought or obtained through fraud.’ ” (Italics added.) 9 Entitlement to receive further compensation benefits after

Shusha, Inc. v. Century-National Ins. Co.

California Court of Appeal · Jan 5, 2023

Accordingly, La Cava’s allegations were insufficient as a matter of law to establish a covered loss. … The insured has the burden of establishing that a claim, unless specifically excluded, is within basic coverage, while the insurer has the burden of establishing that a specific exclusion applies.”

Pacific Coast Medical Enterprises v. Department of Benefit Payments

140 Cal. App. 3d 197 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 24, 1983

Clearly respondent was not paying for an investment in a going business or facility, as such, but rather for the opportunity to speculate—clearly not reimbursable under the statutes or rules here. … The evidence was clearly sufficient to support the administrative law judge’s determination.

In re Thomas

California Court of Appeal · Dec 27, 2018

Supreme Court held the new rule in Crawford, which plays a role in this case, does not qualify as a watershed rule of criminal procedure. (Whorton, at pp. 419-420.) … Decisions establish “new rules” when they depart from clear contrary rules established in prior judicial decisions.