Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

Filterscalctapp

10,000+ results

0.60s

  • Hernandez v. County of Los Angeles

    167 Cal. App. 4th 12 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 25, 2008

    Cal.4th 1142, 1153-1155 [ 90 Cal.Rptr.2d 810 , 988 P.2d 1089 ] (Jones), the City argues our Supreme Court has held that a court’s refusal to grant preelection review in a single subject case means the challengers have not established … Under those circumstances, the normal arguments in favor of the ‘passive virtues’ suggest that a court not adjudicate an issue until it is clearly required to do so.

    Cited 11 timesPublished
  • Silva v. Langford CA2/7

    California Court of Appeal · May 24, 2022

    Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 189, 223 [“‘It must appear clearly and affirmatively that, upon the face of the complaint [and matters of which the court may properly take judicial notice], the right of … Thus, it was CHP’s burden in its demurrer to establish its affirmative defense of governmental immunity. (Heshejin v. Rostami, supra, 54 Cal.App.5th at p. 992; Ivanoff v.

    Cited 0 timesUnpublished
  • Save Our Carmel River v. Monterey Peninsula Water Management District

    46 Cal. Rptr. 3d 387 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 21, 2006

    “Section 1094.5 clearly contemplates that at minimum, the reviewing court must determine-both whether substantial evidence supports the administrative agency’s findings and whether the findings support the agency’s decision … (a)), an agency action qualifies as a project if it is “necessary to the carrying out of some private project involving a physical change in the environment.” (Simi Valley Recreation & Park Dist. v.

    Cited 45 timesPublished
  • 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.

    Cited 22 timesPublished
  • Katz v. Superior Court

    73 Cal. App. 3d 952 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 6, 1977

    Code, § 1460] clearly fails to provide adequate guidelines for the reasoned application of the law. … A qualified clinical psychologist who had done research in the field of repatriated prisoners of war and interned civilians from the Korean War, also testified for the parents on the results of the joint examination.

    Cited 10 timesPublished
  • San Bernardino County Bd. of Supervisors v. Monell

    California Court of Appeal · Jun 16, 2023

    Both the first and second sentences must be read as qualified by the second. … The Board’s evidence fails to establish that Measure K will necessarily violate superseding federal and state law.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. City & County of S.F.

    California Court of Appeal · Feb 22, 2021

    Even if this term were ambiguous, the Court concluded, extrinsic evidence established that the voters who adopted Proposition 218 did not intend article XIII C, section 2 to burden the initiative power. [Citation.] … was “clearly correct.”

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Truestone, Inc. v. Simi West Industrial Park II

    163 Cal. App. 3d 715 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 27, 1984

    “[Section 3097] clearly states that proper notice is a prerequisite to perfecting a mechanic’s lien, and that if service of the notice is accomplished by mail, the notice must be sent by registered or certified mail.” … A statement expressing the debtor’s assent and acknowledging the agreed amount of the debt to the creditor equally establishes an account stated. {Levy v.

    Cited 26 timesPublished
  • Allen v. Superior Court

    194 Cal. App. 2d 720 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 14, 1961

    Thereafter they established their home in Yellowstone County, Montana, and two children, Craig J. Allen, age 6, and Troy *723 Hart Allen, age 4, both boys, were born of the marriage. … The rule that the courts of two or more states may have concurrent jurisdiction of the custody of a child, is now definitely established in California. (Sampsell v.

    Cited 5 timesPublished
  • In re Guerrero CA4/2

    California Court of Appeal · Mar 4, 2021

    Thus, his current claim clearly could have been raised and presented with his prior habeas petition. … Thus, to the extent petitioner believes the trial court’s determination that his 2010 conviction qualified as a strike offense was erroneous or not supported by his record of conviction, such claims clearly could and should

    Cited 0 timesUnpublished
  • Lieberman v. Superior Court

    72 Cal. App. 18 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 26, 1925

    After Clune had qualified as such receiver, he, one Howard Murche, and Roland Gr. … This rule is so well established and is so universally understood that we do not scruple to state it without citation of authority.

    Cited 17 timesPublished
  • People v. Protsman

    105 Cal. Rptr. 2d 819 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 13, 2001

    Clearly, the purpose of Dr. Wu's testimony was to put forth evidence of Protsman's PET scan in an attempt to show he had frontal lobe damage caused by a traumatic brain injury. … In order to establish general acceptance of the use of PET scans to diagnose a prior traumatic brain injury, Protsman had to demonstrate substantial agreement and consensus of a cross-section of the relevant scientific community

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Walker v. Sonora Regional Medical Center

    202 Cal. App. 4th 948 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 12, 2012

    Finally, the trial court found the undisputed facts established that Dr. … On appeal, the Walkers have made no argument regarding that particular claim and have clearly abandoned it.

    Cited 10 timesPublished
  • 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.)

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • United Educators of San Francisco AFT/CFT v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board

    247 Cal. App. 4th 1235 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 6, 2016

    Standard of Review ― ‗Interpretation and applicability of a statute or ordinance is clearly a question of law.‘ [Citation.] … The term ―academic year‖ is used in a provision relating to the calendaring for year-round schools: ―The teaching sessions and vacation periods established pursuant to Section 37618 shall be established without reference

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • Pala Band of Mission Indians v. Bd. of Supervisors of San Diego Cty.

    54 Cal. App. 4th 565 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 23, 1997

    An initiative measure “ ‘must be upheld unless [its] unconstitutionality clearly, positively, and unmistakably appears.’ ” (Id. at p. 711.) … The Board shall establish an environmental review team consisting of qualified personnel to monitor the operations of the landfill which team shall have reasonable acceee to the landfiU during all hours of operation of the

    Cited 29 timesPublished
  • People v. Loera CA5

    California Court of Appeal · Oct 11, 2024

    agreed to testify in exchange for use immunity in this case and a 25 percent reduction in his sentence in a pending federal carjacking case. Mitchell, a parole absconder, testified under a grant of immunity. … “There was repeated reference [at trial] to [Soliz] offering to snort this heroin which clearly indicates to me that it was powder.

    Cited 0 timesUnpublished
  • Vikco Insurance Services, Inc. v. Ohio Indemnity Co.

    82 Cal. Rptr. 2d 442 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 19, 1999

    But a law established for a public reason cannot be contravened by a private agreement.” … The legislative history clearly supports this fact.

    Cited 54 timesPublished
  • McCarthy v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

    37 Cal. Rptr. 3d 909 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 25, 2006

    We interpret the governing statutes de novo, but accord great weight to the WCAB’s construction in Abney unless it is clearly erroneous. (Kleemann v. Workers’ Comp. … In the Abney decision, the WCAB applied several well-established rules of statutory construction.

    Cited 3 timesPublished
  • Alghabra v. CVS Pharmacy CA4/1

    California Court of Appeal · Mar 18, 2013

    In its summary judgment ruling as to Alghabra's fourth and fifth causes of action for emotional distress, the trial court suggested, but did not clearly rule, that Alghabra's entire action was barred by the immunity provision … 10 affirmative defense and, in any event, did not meet the statutory requirements for immunity.

    Cited 0 timesUnpublished

Ask Donna

Ask Donna

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.