Case law

Winston v. Gibbs

221 Cal. App. 3d 599 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 21, 1990

influence, if any, would qualify for a more benign interpretation. … The issue of whether Gibbs unduly profited from the will was not established as a matter of law.

Huber v. Henry J. Kaiser Co.

71 Cal. App. 2d 278 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 24, 1945

At the request of plaintiff the trial court instructed: “It has been established in this case that at the time and place of the happening of this accident the plaintiff Huber was employed by the Pollock-Stockton Shipyard … McCuan, supra, the court said (pp. 41-42): “The cases on which appellant relies to support his position are clearly distinguishable in that they involve appeals from orders granting new trials where one of the grounds for

Downey Cares v. Downey Community Development Commission

196 Cal. App. 3d 983 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 7, 1987

While this advice may provide guidance to others, the immunity provided by Government Code Section 83114[, subdivision] (b) is limited to the requestor and to the specific facts contained *993 in the formal written advice … Lucky Stores, Inc., supra, 34 Cal.3d at p. 322 .) 10 The trial court’s exercise of discretion will not be disturbed unless the appellate court is convinced the award is clearly wrong, since the experienced trial judge can

Todd Shipyards Corp. v. City of Los Angeles

130 Cal. App. 3d 222 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 25, 1982

Rptr. 711 ], the Tripp court stated emphatically, "While it is true *227 that governmental entities traditionally have been immune from liability for interest, Civil Code section 3287 as amended in 1959 provides a clear statutory … pertinent part: "After payment of a tax claimed to be illegal, an action may be maintained to recover the tax paid, with interest, in such manner as may be provided by the Legislature." (1b) Although the home rule provision clearly

Pollard v. Ericsson, Inc.

22 Cal. Rptr. 3d 496 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 22, 2004

It establishes that the Legislature intended to prohibit merchants from advertising a rebate or discount when they conceal from consumers the conditions to be satisfied to receive the rebate or discount. … for the rebate[, o]nly one of [which] involve[d] the purchase of the qualifying product, TurboTax software, after the purchase of the Quicken software.

People v. Drake

151 Cal. App. 2d 28 · California Court of Appeal · May 15, 1957

There was an establishment known as “Campus Corner” near there. She and some of the named defendants, with others, patronized this place. … Apparently one Charles Drake, brother of defendant *45 Larry Drake, was granted immunity and testified for the prosecution.

W&W El Camino Real, LLC v. Fowler

226 Cal. App. 4th 263 · California Court of Appeal · May 16, 2014

The trial court's ruling on a motion to amend a pleading is reviewed under an abuse of discretion 9 standard [citation], and the appellant has the burden of establishing … If commercial agricultural activity qualifies as a nuisance and otherwise falls within section 3482.5, a plaintiff cannot avoid the immunity provided by the statute by simply recharacterizing or relabeling the conduct

People v. Gutierrez CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · Feb 21, 2024

Based on our review of the record, we conclude that there is nothing showing that the witness’s testimony was either clearly exculpatory (i.e., would exonerate Gutierrez of guilt) or essential. (People v. … Accordingly, as in Hull, we conclude that Gutierrez “has failed to establish that the refusal to grant immunity was a distortion of the factfinding process amounting to a due process violation.”

Simi Valley Recreation & Park District v. Local Agency Formation Commission

51 Cal. App. 3d 648 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 25, 1975

If such were the basis for sustaining the demurrers, leave to amend would clearly have been required. … Respondent Board is correct in its assertion that its action was purely ministerial and therefore exempt *667 from CEQA requirements, 11 even if it otherwise qualified as a project.

McDermott Will & Emery LLP v. Superior Court of Orange County

10 Cal. App. 5th 1083 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 18, 2017

It established the following “standard governing the conduct of California lawyers”: “When a lawyer who receives materials that obviously appear to be subject to an attorney-client privilege or otherwise clearly appear to … Second, by using the terms “appear” and “apparent” in the language on which Defendants rely, even with the qualifiers “obviously,” “clearly,” and “reasonably,” the State Fund court made clear that the privileged nature of

Wilkinson v. Wilkinson

51 Cal. App. 3d 382 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 17, 1975

The Legislature is presumed to have in mind the law as established by existing domestic decisions. Thus, as stated by the Supreme Court in Cole v. … Code, § 6702) and for the qualified liability of a successor to the business. (Cf. id., §§ 6811-6812.) It made all remedies cumulative. (Cf. id., § 6827.) In 1935 (Stats. 1935, ch. 357, § 14, p. 1262.

People v. Winchell

248 Cal. App. 2d 580 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 16, 1967

Although circumstances disclosed in the dissenting opinion reflect that the exception later enunciated in Kellett may have been applicable, it was not established at that time. … It is difficult to classify possession as an ‘act’, although acquisition clearly would be. The absence of an act, however, does not dispose of the issue.

Orange County Social Services Agency v. R.S.

104 Cal. App. 4th 1401 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 31, 2002

.) *1407 [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”].) … But given the BIA’s response showing no Indian heritage could be traced for Antoinette, the ICWA clearly did not *1414 apply to these proceedings and the court’s error was harmless.

Beynon v. Garden Grove Medical Group

100 Cal. App. 3d 698 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 4, 1980

Those provisions are clearly severable from and untainted by the provisions of paragraph B. … a Medical Group rejects the decisions of such arbitration within thirty (30) days of receipt of the written decision thereof, the decision shall not be binding, and the dispute shall be submitted to a panel of three (3) qualified

People v. Moore

44 Cal. App. 4th 1323 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 25, 1996

Under this interpretation of the jury’s verdict, there was clearly no prejudice from the trial court’s response to the jury’s question. … There is no authority supporting the concept that a casual sexual relationship is sufficient to establish cohabitation without the necessary element of “permanence.”

Alameda County Dep. Sheriff's Assn. v. Alameda County Emp. Ret. Assn.

California Court of Appeal · Jan 8, 2018

In re Retirement Cases, for example, clearly recognized the issue, but declined to address it. … In each of these instances the potential injustice to employees or their dependents clearly outweighed any adverse effects on established public policy.” (Longshore, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 28.)

Carl v. City of Los Angeles

61 Cal. App. 3d 265 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 18, 1976

Clearly all nudity cannot be deemed obscene even as to minors. [Citation.] Nor can such a broad restriction be justified by any other governmental interest pertaining to minors.” … (Italics added.) *276 Clearly these arguments are addressed to an ordinance that has not yet been enacted.

People v. Harty

173 Cal. App. 3d 493 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 21, 1985

Notwithstanding the strict requirements of the above cited cases, judgments have been affirmed where the record clearly shows (1) the defendant was fully advised of the three constitutional rights waived by pleading guilty … He must, in these circumstances, establish that his admissions were involuntary for want of the admonitions required by Boykin-Tahl.

Garcia v. Cal. Dept. of Corrections etc. CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · Jan 21, 2015

To establish a prima facie case of physical disability discrimination under FEHA, the employee must demonstrate that he or she is disabled, is otherwise qualified to do the job, and was subjected to an adverse employment … The plaintiff must, in both cases, establish that he or she suffers from a disability covered by FEHA and that he or she is a qualified individual.

Rosas v. County of Santa Cruz CA6

California Court of Appeal · Feb 2, 2024

immunity. … Based on its rulings, the trial court did not address Newman’s Section 1983 qualified immunity argument. 4  C.