Case law

Catholic Charities v. Superior Court

109 Cal. Rptr. 2d 176 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 26, 2001

(d).) [2] Catholic Charities concedes that it does not meet any of the four criteria necessary to qualify for the religious employer exception. … That, we think, is not what the Establishment Clause stands for.

Dowden v. Superior Court

86 Cal. Rptr. 2d 180 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 28, 1999

The driver's statement evidently set forth ` ... his version of the accident and thus clearly is at the very heart of the attorney client privilege.' [Citations.]" ( Id. at pp. 717-718, 339 P.2d 567 .) … This initial concept differed from the federal rules which granted only a qualified protection founded on Hickman's work product doctrine. ( Hickman v. Taylor, supra, 329 U.S. 495 , 67 S.Ct. 385 , 91 L.Ed. 451 .)

Stadish v. Superior Court

84 Cal. Rptr. 2d 350 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 30, 1999

categories of documents. 3 On June 13, 1998, counsel for the Gas Company, David Keitel, sought from petitioners’ attorney, Amy Ardell, an extension of time within which to respond to several of the discovery requests and to establish … Clearly, the release of inaccurate, unreliable or misleading information could unfairly damage the manufacturer’s reputation and alarm the public unnecessarily. [Citation.]” {Ibid.)

Smith v. Superior Court

10 Cal. App. 4th 1033 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 29, 1992

There it was held "damages for emotional distress arising out of acts which invade an interest protected by established tort law are recoverable only if the claimed emotional distress naturally ensues from the acts complained … Petitioners' purported negligence clearly affected plaintiff.

People v. Lindsey

84 Cal. App. 3d 851 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 14, 1978

Suzanne testified that although the lights in the residence were not on, outdoor lighting permitted her to clearly see her assailant. … In this case the fact that the accused was somewhere near the scene of the crime would not, in itself, establish a probability that he was guilty, but only a possibility, yet such evidence is clearly admissible as a link

Stewart v. Preston Pipeline Inc.

36 Cal. Rptr. 3d 901 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 20, 2005

—was subject to a qualified privilege (i.e., discoverable only upon a good-cause showing). (Id. at p. 414.) … It reasoned: “[T]he Legislature clearly knows how to establish a ‘good cause’ exception to a protection or privilege if it so desires [e.g., the discovery of attorney work product under Code of Civil Procedure section 2018

RGC Gaslamp v. Ehmcke Sheet Metal Co.

California Court of Appeal · Oct 23, 2020

Instead, it disputes whether such activity qualifies for protection in the first instance. … To adopt such an interpretation would virtually eradicate the litigation privilege for all but the most clearly meritorious claim.” (Feldman, supra, 160 Cal.App.4th at p. 1489.)

Shirran v. Dallas

21 Cal. App. 405 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 7, 1913

This is sufficient evidence that the requisite proof was produced to establish the genuineness of the signatures of the defendants to their admission. … From the foregoing provisions of the indenture these propositions are clearly and unmistakably deducible: 1.

Frazer v. Dixon Unified School District

18 Cal. App. 4th 781 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 2, 1993

The issue of the Board’s role in the establishment and conduct of the review procedures is hotly contested. … Section 54952.3 clearly contemplates that many of these bodies will establish “advisory committees” to assist with “examination of facts and data,” and that the mechanisms by which such advisory bodies are created will be

KCSFV I, LLC v. Florin County Water District

California Court of Appeal · May 28, 2021

The plain language of the provision clearly contradicts this argument. … Unless an award is ‘clearly wrong,’ no such abuse of discretion can be demonstrated. [Citation.]

In re Anthony

236 Cal. App. 4th 204 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 27, 2015

The court also ruled that Anthony had failed to establish actual innocence. … “‘[C]ourts are precluded from so interpreting section 1238 as to expand the People’s right of appeal into areas other than those clearly specified by the Legislature.’ [Citation.]” (People v.

Getz v. Super. Ct.

California Court of Appeal · Dec 13, 2021

Further, the burden to assert and establish exemption from disclosure is on the agency, which would be well advised to segregate privileged documents from others. … 25  In any case, Getz failed to raise this exception to the exemption in the trial court. 21 Thus, the trial court had no opportunity to apply the statute to evidence regarding whether Getz qualified

Kirkland v. Superior Court

115 Cal. Rptr. 2d 279 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 9, 2002

did the arbitration in the Guess/PLB royalty dispute, as the result of which Guess became aware that Kirkland had used “several sham transactions” to conceal PLB’s inability to make payments on its existing debt and to qualify … Guess moved to compel production, contending the SEC materials were clearly relevant to its claims and asking the court to order Kirkland to produce all testimony and documents given to the SEC by several named individuals

B.B. v. County of Los Angeles

California Court of Appeal · Jul 12, 2018

The jury was properly instructed with respect to noneconomic damages, and nothing in the record clearly establishes the jury relied upon improper considerations. … A “result which requires reversal should clearly appear from the record.

Fraijo v. Superior Court

34 Cal. App. 3d 222 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 12, 1973

interference with the constitutional and orderly process of the court; stating at page 79: “But to put in the hands of a litigant uncontrolled power to dislodge without reason or for an undisclosed reason, an admittedly qualified … Thus, by comparison with the federal statute and its application by the federal courts, Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6 as invoked generally and in this case in particular clearly partakes of the character of a peremptory

Cairns v. Haddock

60 Cal. App. 83 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 5, 1922

They illustrate the application of well-established principles to varying situations and are of no particular assistance herein. … Indeed, the expression is qualified by the following phrase and “of the right of way and site,” etc., so that there cgn be no doubt that only an easement was found to exist in favor of plaintiff.

County of Orange v. Ivansco

78 Cal. Rptr. 2d 886 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 16, 1998

But, as we explain, they are clearly distinguishable. The courts in City and County of San Francisco v. Thompson (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 652 [ 218 Cal.Rptr. 445 ], County of Los Angeles v. … The panel acknowledged the cited factors did not qualify for a hardship deduction but noted section 4057 (former Civ. Code, § 4721, subd.

City of Palos Verdes Estates v. Willett

75 Cal. App. 2d 394 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 17, 1946

The trustee had legal title to Lot N, but its title was qualified by the right of the property owners to prevent its use for any other than park and recreation purposes. … Neither the trustee nor the city seeks in this action to establish in itself a title which will be free from such public use.

Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. City of Roseville

132 Cal. Rptr. 2d 1 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 10, 2003

The ordinance established a general tax, i.e., the revenues from the tax were paid into the City’s general fund for the unrestricted use of the City. The tax has not been increased or otherwise amended since 1990. … The measure defines “special tax” in a manner that clearly encompasses the tax proposed by Measure Q. We are not at liberty to ignore the unambiguous language of either Proposition 218 or Measure Q.

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

California Court of Appeal · Sep 16, 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.”