Case law

Jackson v. Stockdale

215 Cal. App. 3d 1503 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 27, 1989

This section defined the term ‘medical necessity’ as used in relation to the established utilization controls.” (Cowan v. Myers, supra, 187 Cal.App.3d at pp. 973-974, fn. omitted.) … Undisputed evidence presented to the trial court by respondents established that root canal treatments and laboratory processed crowns are both clearly restorative.

People v. Hisquierdo

45 Cal. App. 3d 397 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 7, 1975

The Supreme Court pointed out that a defendant has an absolute right to appointed counsel, but that the right to discharge him and substitute. another is qualified, subject to the discretion of the trial court; and the trial … Therefore, under the established rules for testing the need of a sua sponte instruction, the court was under no duty to do so here. (People v.

People v. First Federal Credit Corp.

104 Cal. App. 4th 721 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 20, 2002

intended to require evidence of a defendant’s financial status to be presented by the People as a prerequisite to the imposition of civil penalties under sections 17206 and 17536, it would not have included the specific qualifying … This is clearly such a case.

Turner v. Schultz

175 Cal. App. 4th 974 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 13, 2009

II, for the same reason, we dismissed as moot Turner’s appeal of the judgment entered after the trial court sustained the demurrer of AAA, which was also a defendant in the action, on the ground that it enjoyed arbitral immunity … The trial court awarded fees under Paragraph 13, explaining its reasoning at the hearing on the motion as follows: “I think that the defendant here clearly is a prevailing party; that this action is separate and independent

People v. Talley

172 Cal. App. Supp. 2d 797 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 17, 1958

Again, as the cases already cited clearly establish, the protection of the two Constitutions is against adverse action by city legislative bodies as well as by state legislatures. … It must be conceded, of course, that neither freedom of speech nor of the press is immune from every restriction.

People v. Perez

243 Cal. App. 4th 863 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 8, 2016

clearly implied promise of leniency or advantage." … In Morgain, the prosecutor granted the defendant's girlfriend (Wallace) use immunity, and called her as a witness at the defendant's murder trial. (Id. at p. 460.)

Browand v. Scott Lumber Co.

125 Cal. App. 2d 68 · California Court of Appeal · May 5, 1954

Therefore, defendants argue, the court was confronted with a situation which it could have handled in one of four different ways: (1) Enter judgment in accordance with the jury’s intent which they argue was clearly expressed … The same argument now made by defendants was also made to the trial court upon their motion for a new trial, and the court after due deliberation, by a qualified order reduced the amount of punitive damages and the same was

S.M. v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist.

California Court of Appeal · Oct 7, 2015

The Legislature clearly recognized that a plaintiff’s sexual history had significant potential for prejudice. (Knoettgen v. Superior Court, supra, 224 Cal.App.3d at pp. 13- 14.) … , and accordingly are discretionary acts for which defendant . . . is immune from liability.”

Mayer v. Board of Trustees

106 Cal. App. 3d 476 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 3, 1980

In other words, while the new mandate of section 13506 as amended and as interpreted by Palos Verdes clearly invalidates that part of the holding in Fry which stated that the limitation in the School Code as it then read … ‘experience’ which is to qualify for a particular level of credit” (Palos Verdes Faculty Assn. v. Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified Sch.

San Diego County Department of Social Services v. Neal

190 Cal. App. 3d 685 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 24, 1987

The Legislature clearly contemplated circumstances where the LPS conservatee's family or friends would act as primary care providers. … In addition, Neal clearly was not subject to the risk of involuntary commitment as a result of establishing a private conservatorship administered by his longtime friend and common law wife. Dr.

Adventure Church v. City of Fresno CA5

California Court of Appeal · Jul 19, 2024

The trial court also addressed the city’s contention that it was immune from suit under Government Code section 815. … The issues in this litigation clearly were under consideration in legitimate official proceedings. The church does not contend otherwise.

Wanke, Industrial, Commercial, Residential, Inc. v. Keck

209 Cal. App. 4th 1151 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 4, 2012

The trial court also recognized that, “Numerous courts have concluded [that] customer lists can qualify for trade secret protection.” … In reaching this conclusion, the Morlife court reasoned in part, “In view of the clearly established violation of the UTS A, the injunction correctly draws the line, and leaves [the former employees’ new company] free to

Dameron Hosp. Assn. v. AAA Nor. Cal., Nev. & Utah Ins. Exc.

California Court of Appeal · Jul 29, 2014

12 absence of a debt underlying the lien” and does not extend to resolving issues of whether the HLA applies in the Medicaid context, violates due process, is subject to waiver by hospitals, or is subject to litigation immunity … Unlike the contracts in the cases from other jurisdictions, this reservation clearly qualifies the ‘payment in full’ language and sets forth the hospitals’ expectation to recover their customary charges when possible.”

State v. Thompson

22 Cal. App. 3d 368 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 23, 1971

A survey from the nearest established comer is least liable to error. (Gordon v. Booker (1893) 97 Cal. 586, 588-589 [ 32 P. 593 ].) … Since the location of the northeast comer of section 7 was in dispute, it was clearly proper for Larson to commence his survey at the northwest corner of section 7.

Phelps v. Orange County Assessment Appeals Board No. 1

187 Cal. App. 4th 653 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 16, 2010

Although the lease was silent *660 on the issue, the evidence established that the retailer paid rent for the land, not the building on it. … Accordingly, Reilly concluded that “[t]he receipt of income generated by property qualifies as a ‘beneficial use’ of the property . . . .”

Jointer v. Superior Court

217 Cal. App. 4th 759 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 28, 2013

The evidence at trial, as the [district attorney] points out, clearly showed that Defendant was the robber. Defendant was identified positively by one eyewitness. That eyewitness was the direct victim of the robbery. … As a result, “it was clear that it was far from definitive and subject to quite different interpretations from equally qualified experts.” (Id. at p. 1052.)

McKay v. Superior Court

98 Cal. App. 2d 770 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 3, 1950

I realize that that may be a matter of practicality and not of legality when a judge either is disqualified or isn’t but I do feel qualified to preside over a jury trial. … Although we are impressed as are counsel by the evident sincerity of Judge Ross in his endeavor to appraise his situation as posed by the allegations of the defendants, nevertheless we must follow the' well established rule

CRYSTAL R. v. Superior Court of Santa Cruz County

59 Cal. App. 4th 703 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 26, 1997

The Kansas Supreme Court acknowledged that the proceeding qualified under the definitions contained in the Act as a child custody proceeding involving an Indian child. … The Indian father barely knows his daughter and has only recently established contact with his tribe.

People v. Stevey

209 Cal. App. 4th 1400 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 18, 2012

The second prong requires proof that the witness testifying about the technique and its application is a properly qualified expert on the subject. (Ibid.) … We see no reason to judicially impose a ‘guidelines’ requirement when the general scientific community clearly does not.” (Ibid.)

Lauckhart v. El Macero Homeowners Assn.

California Court of Appeal · Jun 23, 2023

“ ‘The common law business judgment rule has two components—one which immunizes [corporate] directors from personal liability if they act in accordance with its requirements, and another which insulates from court … The Association and the subdivision qualify as an association and a common interest development, respectively, under the Davis-Stirling Act.