Case law

Landry v. Berryessa Union School District

39 Cal. App. 4th 691 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 25, 1995

The underlying assumption behind *697 section 36 is that the plaintiff has diligently engaged in preparation for trial or settlement; in those circumstances the plaintiff clearly is entitled to priority based on his or her … We must presume the trial court’s order was correct, and it is the plaintiff’s burden to overcome that presumption and establish a clear abuse of discretion. (Blank v.

Law Offices of Mathew Higbee v. Expungement Assistance Services

214 Cal. App. 4th 544 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 14, 2013

“To satisfy the narrower standing requirements imposed by Proposition 64, a party must now . . . establish a *556 loss or deprivation of money or property sufficient to qualify as an injury in fact, i.e., economic injury … Clearly, the court determined that an alleged loss of market share, even without a claim of patent infringement, was sufficient to demonstrate injury.

In Re Episcopal Church Cases

61 Cal. Rptr. 3d 845 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 25, 2007

It is now well-established in California that anti-SLAPP motions are tested by a two-prong process, in which the court must first look at (1) whether the motion even qualifies for anti-SLAPP treatment, and (2) the merits. … Several of the proposed distributees obviously did not qualify, such as the seminary and the Serviceman's Center.

In re D.G. CA1/5

California Court of Appeal · Jun 30, 2016

children came within section 300, subdivisions (b) and (j) because: (1) they witnessed mother being slapped and strangled by various male companions; and (2) R.H. missed numerous “well child checks” and was “not current on his immunizations … We will not reverse a denial of a section 388 petition “‘unless an abuse of discretion is clearly established.’ [Citation.] The denial of a section 388 motion rarely merits reversal as an abuse of discretion.

Westside Sane/Freeze v. Ernest W. Hahn, Inc.

224 Cal. App. 3d 546 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 4, 1990

Allied Stores Intern., Inc. (1983) 388 Mass. 83 [ 445 N.E.2d 590 , 38 A.L.R.4th 1206 ], the court upheld a candidate’s right to circulate his qualifying petition at a shopping center, but rested its decision entirely on the … We agree that the injunction must be more clearly phrased. In the context of this injunction, the phrase “protected expression” is acutely ambiguous.

Srouy v. San Diego Unified School District

California Court of Appeal · Feb 24, 2022

Government Code section 815.6 is one of the statutory exceptions to this rule of governmental immunity. … His factual allegations thus do not establish that these school employees “failed to exercise reasonable care” in supervising him during the game, as required to establish a violation of Education Code section 44808.

People v. Mercado CA6

California Court of Appeal · Feb 20, 2026

Defendant argues the evidence does not establish he knew the two shots he fired would likely cause harm to the victims. … This record does not clearly indicate the trial court would have imposed the same sentence under the new law.

Dameron Hospital Ass'n v. AAA Northern California Nevada & Utah Insurance Exchange

229 Cal. App. 4th 549 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 4, 2014

not extend to resolving issues of whether 12 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.”

U.C. Nuclear Weapons Labs Conversion Project v. Lawrence Livermore Laboratory

154 Cal. App. 3d 1157 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 27, 1984

This was because, by using the visitors’ day to communicate its message to the public “that defense appropriations were being wisely used, [the Air Force] clearly established that subject matter as an appropriate one for … The essential nature and purpose of the auditorium clearly do not qualify it as a traditional public forum, nor even as a “semi-public forum” as discussed above.

Krumme v. Mercury Insurance

20 Cal. Rptr. 3d 485 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 29, 2004

Mercury took the position that “statutes and court decisions do not clearly define the difference between agents and brokers.” … It is not a device to confuse the established legal distinction between a ‘broker’ and an ‘agent’ so clearly announced in § 1621 and § 1623 of the Insurance Code.

Giacalone v. Industrial Accident Commission

120 Cal. App. 2d 727 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 20, 1953

The employer, unless he qualifies as a self-insurer, is required to have compensation insurance. He is not compelled to, and may not have, liability coverage. … The rule is not altered because a plaintiff believes that he can establish negligence on the part of his employer and brings a civil suit for damages.

People v. Alaybue

California Court of Appeal · Jun 25, 2020

In this case, Senate Bill 1437 clearly did not add to or otherwise modify the list of predicate felonies leading to felony murder liability. … It is well established that “ ‘[a]n attempt is an offense “separate” and “distinct” from the completed crime.’ ” (People v. Lewis (2006) 146 Cal.App.4th 294, 298.)

Rey v. Madera Unified School District

203 Cal. App. 4th 1223 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 28, 2012

In January 2010, the County Committee moved for summary judgment arguing that it had not violated any duties under the CYRA and had legislative immunity. … Appellants also claimed 979.5 hours for establishing and defending their fees.

People v. Salvador

California Court of Appeal · May 5, 2017

Precisely what qualifies as “testimonial” is far from settled. … The Attorney General naturally drew our attention to two passages from that opinion: “[T]he One Strike law establishes a floor—a minimum term a qualifying defendant must serve—but does not require sentencing under the statute

Masellis v. Law Office of Leslie F. Jensen

California Court of Appeal · Jun 19, 2020

The qualification requirements set forth in Evidence Code section 720, subdivision (a): “A person is qualified to testify as an expert if he has special knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education sufficient to qualify … As to proof of the amount of damages, we refer to the general principle that, “though the fact of damage must be clearly established, the amount need not be proved with the same degree of certainty, but may be left to reasonable

Rodriguez v. Superior Court

199 Cal. App. 3d 1453 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 5, 1988

In doing so, it noted that the period at the end of the first sentence is obviously misplaced; the qualifying phrase, “[w]hen heroin has been sold from said residence,” should be part of the first sentence. … Admittedly, the trial court expressed some concern that the magistrate was not reading the affidavits all that carefully, an expression of concern clearly justified under the circumstances of this case.

Sparks v. Owens-Illinois, Inc.

32 Cal. App. 4th 461 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 17, 1995

{Id. at p. 403.) 11 The testimony of plaintiffs’ medical experts was clearly *477 sufficient to support a jury finding that Owens-Illinois’s product, Kaylo, was more likely than not the source of asbestos fibers that caused … In that case, our Supreme Court interpreted Proposition 51 to require that, notwithstanding the immunity of employers from tort suits for workplace injuries suffered by employees (Lab.

BLANCA P. v. Superior Court

45 Cal. App. 4th 1738 · California Court of Appeal · May 31, 1996

But it was irrelevant only if the idea that Rogelio had actually molested his daughter had been already established and was immune, at the 18-month hearing, from any attack. … Collateral estoppel is strong legal medicine because, like full faith and credit, res judicata, and even law of the case, it can preclude relitigation of an issue even when the earlier decision was clearly erroneous.”

Southern California White Trucks v. Teresinski

190 Cal. App. 3d 1393 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 7, 1987

Liability has become established. Secondly, the words of the section ‘before verdict or judgment’ must be construed to mean: ‘before establishment of liability,’ with ‘verdict’ equated with such liability determination. … Section 877 itself clearly states it applies where a settlement or other agreement is given “before verdict or judgment.” The rules of statutory construction indicate these words are to be given their plain meaning.

Osborne v. Yasmeh

California Court of Appeal · Jul 29, 2016

The scope of the statute clearly is not limited to exclusionary practices. … The Legislature has clearly stated that business establishments must provide ‘equal . . . advantages . . . [and] privileges’ to all customers ‘no matter what their sex.’ (§ 51.)” (Id. at p. 39.)