Case law

Dawn D. v. Superior Court

17 Cal. 4th 932 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 6, 1998

Robertson never clearly decided to what extent the unwed father in that case had a protected liberty interest in the opportunity to develop a relationship with his child, nor was it necessary for the court to do so. … Arguably, Jerry would qualify as an “interested party” for purposes of bringing an action to establish Frank’s nonpaternity under subdivision (d) of section 7611.

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.

Central Valley Hospitalists v. Dignity Health

California Court of Appeal · Jan 9, 2018

‘Peer review liability privilege’ refers to the limited immunity to suit granted with respect to certain communications (when made without malice) related to evaluation of medical personnel, as granted by California Civil … aspect of a hospital peer review proceeding involves protected 18 activity, but only whether statements in connection with but outside the course of such a proceeding can qualify

K.M. v. Grossmont Union High School Dist.

California Court of Appeal · Oct 25, 2022

Plaintiffs do not establish otherwise. … The court further stated, “Clearly, there was no comparative negligen[ce] . . . instruction. Clearly, the verdict form put it just between [Chatham] and the [District].” 2.

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.

Herren v. George S.

California Court of Appeal · Mar 4, 2025

Longstanding case law recognizes, for example, that “[s]oundness of mind and body does not imply immunity from undue influence. … Moore’s testimony also established that, after the meeting, George looked drained, hungry, and tired.

Flats Management Group v. L.A. County Metro. Trans. Auth. CA2/8

California Court of Appeal · Apr 24, 2026

I’d ask the court to take another look at those 32 immunities.” … Flats and Simon argue that Metro waived its immunity under the Act by not objecting to the use of CACI No. 400, by failing to ask for a jury instruction on governmental immunity, and by “failing to litigate the defense until

Herren v. George S.

California Court of Appeal · Mar 3, 2025

Longstanding case law recognizes, for example, that “[s]oundness of mind and body does not imply immunity from undue influence. … Moore’s testimony also established that, after the meeting, George looked drained, hungry, and tired.

People v. Randazzo

220 Cal. App. 2d 768 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 30, 1963

Speaking of the Fourth Amendment the court said: “Its origin and history clearly show that it was intended as a restraint upon the activities of sovereign authority, and was not intended to be a limitation upon other than … Public employees and governmental bodies enjoy certain immunities which generally foreclose the possibility of civil actions.

People for Proper Planning v. City of Palm Springs

California Court of Appeal · Jun 17, 2016

The City’s argument to the contrary discounts minimum density standards on the ground that the General Plan qualifies that minimum number as “anticipated.” … Thus, arguably, the Amendment changes the diversity of residential densities established in General Plan.

Davis v. Tanner

88 Cal. App. 67 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 28, 1927

The respondent is the surviving widow and the duly qualified administratrix of the estate of Harvey D. Davis, deceased. … The approaching street-car and taxicab were clearly visible to the deceased.

Kurtin v. Elieff

215 Cal. App. 4th 455 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 16, 2013

It is well established that the scope of an arbitrator’s powers are fixed by the agreement to arbitrate. (E.g., Moncharsh v. … To be sure (as shown by sentences one, two and six), the parties clearly wanted their mediated agreement to be enforceable.

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.

Schabarum v. California Legislature

60 Cal. App. 4th 1205 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 14, 1998

“To restore a free and democratic system of fair elections, and to encourage qualified candidates to seek public office, the people find and declare that the powers of incumbency must be limited. … It was not until the eve of World War I that legislative legal services were formally established.” (Wilson, California’s Legislature (1994 ed.) p. 123.)

Holtzendorff v. Housing Authority

250 Cal. App. 2d 596 · California Court of Appeal · May 1, 1967

And they were qualified to participate and did participate in all of the pension funds which were in effect during their employment. … The ease clearly comes within the doctrine of the Sweesy case.

Placencia v. Strazicich

California Court of Appeal · Dec 23, 2019

The express terms of the account bear particular importance for the financial institution that holds the account: CAMPAL contains a safe harbor that immunizes a financial institution for payments it makes in compliance with … She established a living trust that expressly stated her intention to give the savings account to [the trust beneficiary].

San Bernardino County Fire Protection Dist. v. Page

California Court of Appeal · Feb 14, 2024

We further conclude the District was not required to establish intent under section 18600 and affirm the order granting the Writ Petition. … An initiative measure ‘“must be upheld unless [its] unconstitutionality clearly, positively, and unmistakably appears.”’ [Citation.]” (Pala Band of Mission Indians v.

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.

People v. De Rosans

27 Cal. App. 4th 611 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 9, 1994

The fair cross-section requirement itself, as well as Duren and section 225, clearly contemplates a pretrial challenge. … Code of Civil Procedure section 194 defines “juror pool” as “the group of prospective qualified jurors appearing for assignment to trial jury panels” (subd.

People v. Tolbert CA1/2

California Court of Appeal · Mar 30, 2022

Ogas did not question me about any immune related issues or diseases which put me in a high risk category for Covid-19.” … about to shut down” and “[j]ury trials were clearly going to be suspended,” something she and other counsel had done since the beginning of the pandemic.