Case law

Bodine v. Superior Court

209 Cal. App. 2d 354 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 8, 1962

Clearly this determination of the order and times of proof was a matter for the judge’s discretion. (Code Civ. … These considerations clearly indicate that the interrelated proceedings must be heard at the same time.

Boosman v. United Building Co.

109 Cal. App. 2d 486 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 27, 1952

The securing of a second lien by the creditor without such disclosure is clearly in violation of the letter and spirit of the statute and regulations. … However the opening words of the amendment “It is the intent of Congress . . .” clearly speak of the intent as of the date of its adoption. (Italics ours.)

People v. St. Pierre CA3

California Court of Appeal · Apr 22, 2016

(Wilson, supra, 219 Cal.App.4th at p. 512.) “ ‘Proximately causing an injury is clearly different from personally inflicting an injury.’ [Citation.] … on its face whether or not the conviction constitutes a qualifying prior conviction.

Moser v. Ratinoff

105 Cal. App. 4th 1211 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 31, 2003

That doctrine, which is now established as “the controlling law” (Cheong v. … The primary assumption of risk rule “does not grant unbridled legal immunity to all defendants participating in sporting activity.

Chicago Historical Society, Inc. v. Law

180 Cal. App. 2d 313 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 26, 1960

Thompson, qualified as an expert witness for the contestants. Dr. Thompson specializes in the field of psychiatry and neurology. … Sease: We have nothing established absolutely I don’t know why that comes in. *331 “The Court: We must assume it is established absolutely. Mr.

In Re Antoinette S.

129 Cal. Rptr. 2d 15 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 31, 2002

Rptr.2d 639 ( Dwayne P. )) [noting that "a child may qualify as an Indian child within the meaning of the ICWA even if neither of the child's parents is enrolled in the tribe"]. … SSA clearly violated section 1912(a) by sending notice to the BIA just one day before the termination hearing.

People v. Wheeler

23 Cal. App. 3d 290 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 30, 1971

DeWayne Wolfer, a qualified firearms and ballistics expert, test fired the .45 caliber automatic pistol (People’s Exhibit 5) and obtained two shell casings (People’s Exhibit 13). … Appellants Offered No Evidence to Establish That the District Attorney Excluded Black People From Their Jury Solely Upon the Basis of Race.

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.

Shea v. State

20 Cal. App. 3d 137 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 20, 1971

Since nonresidents cannot qualify as administrators, the public administrator is the proper person. (Prob. Code, §§ 420, 422, subd. (8); Estate of Beech (1883) 63 Cal. 458 .) … It is not designed to be an expropriation of property of foreign resident owners who are known and who have established their property right to the fund.

Castro v. Fowler Equipment Co.

233 Cal. App. 2d 416 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 2, 1965

In the Witt case, supra, the Supreme Court clearly states that the right of the defendant if he proves that the employer was contributively negligent is a defense against the employer’s right to seek reimbursement for compensation … has resulted to the appealing party, or (2) there were wilfully false and untruthful answers given by the juror which would lead to the inference that the juror was animated by a dishonest motive in qualifying, the trial

Hoel v. City of Los Angeles

136 Cal. App. 2d 295 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 17, 1955

If it was the former, failure to direct traffic, it was clearly a theory not sanctioned by the law. … Hence the granting of a new trial was clearly justified.

Straass v. DeSantis CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · Jul 31, 2014

Where the attorney's performance is so clearly contrary to established standards that a trier of fact may find professional negligence without expert testimony, it is not required." (Day v. … In light of these considerations, DeSantis's conduct is not "so clearly contrary to established standards" as to remove the general requirement for expert testimony.

Kleemann v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

127 Cal. App. 4th 274 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 2, 2005

In any event, the Legislature’s intent is clearly stated in Section 47 and includes Kleemann’s injuries under the analysis of Aetna Casualty and Graczyk. B. … Philip Morris Companies, Inc. (2002) 28 Cal.4th 828, 840-841, 844 [ 123 Cal.Rptr.2d 40 , 50 P.3d 751 ] (Myers) (repeal of tobacco industry statutory immunity is prospective absent a clear indication by Legislature retrospective

Douglas v. Ostermeier

1 Cal. App. 4th 729 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 9, 1991

Appellants objected to Patricia Douglas’s testimony as lacking foundation, contending she was not qualified as an expert. … Under the standards established in prior California cases, the punitive damages award of $187,000 is well within a reasonable range (see, e.g., Devlin v.

In Re DD

50 Cal. Rptr. 3d 578 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 2, 2006

Yet, after establishing J.D. also was under the age of 18, qualified as D.D.' … But, clearly, J.D.'

Van Audenhove v. Perry

11 Cal. App. 5th 915 · California Court of Appeal · May 19, 2017

“‘[I]n order to establish a cause of action for malicious prosecution of either a criminal or civil proceeding, a plaintiff must demonstrate “that the prior action (1) was commenced by or at the direction of the defendant … Here, the arrest was clearly legal in this sense, because the arresting officer had probable cause, based on Perry’s statements, even though those statements were false and malicious. (Pen. Code, § 836, subd.

Buccery v. General Motors Corp.

60 Cal. App. 3d 533 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 27, 1976

The result would be to immunize from strict liability manufacturers who callously ignore patent dangers in their products while subjecting to such liability those who innocently market products with latent defects.” … The testimony of plaintiff’s expert thus clearly supported a finding of defective design.

Visitacion Investment v. 424 Jessie Historic Properties

California Court of Appeal · Jun 28, 2023

Union Pacific sold the JHP property only after determining that the property qualified as “excess property,” meaning that Union Pacific no longer used it for “operating railroad purposes.” … “[W]e exercise an independent review to determine if the defendant moving for summary judgment met its burden of establishing a complete defense or of negating each of the plaintiff’s theories and establishing that the action

Nichols v. Keller

15 Cal. App. 4th 1672 · California Court of Appeal · May 24, 1993

There are, of course, situations in which workers’ compensation clearly provides the worker a complete remedy. … The rationale is that, as between the lay client and the attorney, the latter is more qualified to recognize and analyze the client’s legal needs. The attorney need not represent the client on such matters.

Carroll v. State Bar of California

166 Cal. App. 3d 1193 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 4, 1985

This is clearly wrong. … Unsuccessful litigants in suits to vindicate the public interest do not qualify for attorney fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 or for fees under the inherent equitable power of the courts.