Case law

Carrillo v. Modesto City Schools CA5

California Court of Appeal · Feb 3, 2026

“Enacted in 1963, the Government Claims Act . . . is a comprehensive statutory scheme governing the liabilities and immunities of public entities and public employees for torts.” (Quigley v. … The plaintiff must clearly and specifically set forth the ‘applicable substantive law’ [citation] and the legal basis for amendment, i.e., the elements of the cause of action and authority for it.

Garcia v. Cal. Dept. of Corrections & Rehabilitation CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · Jan 16, 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The CBM Group v. Llamas

California Court of Appeal · Jun 23, 2017

no substantial evidence to support the judgment to the extent that it relied on the three-day notice because respondent refused to allow her to complete the recertification process to qualify … The rent was $766 per month, but appellant was only required to pay $25 per month because she qualified for subsidies under the United States Department of Agriculture‟s Rural Development Program.

Choochagi v. Barracuda Networks, Inc.

California Court of Appeal · Feb 1, 2021

his or her right to take a qualifying leave; and (4) the plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action because he or she exercised the right to take CFRA leave. … Clearly the date of the hearing was known to Choochagi. At that point, Choochagi should have alerted the court to advance the matter on the calendar.

Garcia-Brower v. Premier Automotive Imports of CA, LLC

California Court of Appeal · Oct 15, 2020

Prior to receipt of the DMV’s denial letter, there had been no complaints about Molina’s work performance and she appeared qualified to do the job. C. … As Hendricks, Mandigma, and Cunningham all acknowledged at trial, the Department of Justice’s report to the DMV was clearly in conflict with Vigilant’s background check.

Cohen v. Five Brooks Stable

72 Cal. Rptr. 3d 471 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 14, 2008

The dissent does precisely the opposite; instead of asking whether respondent has established, as a matter of undisputed fact, “either that one or more elements of the cause of action cannot be established or that there is … If such conduct was considered an integral part of the activity, a stable operator would be immune from liability if its trail guide suddenly whipped or threw a lit firecracker under the horse of an unsuspecting rider.

People v. Ortiz

California Court of Appeal · Jan 26, 2023

(See § 1385(c)(1)-(2); see also Carmony, supra, 33 Cal.4th at pp. 376-377 [the party attacking the judgment must clearly show that the decision was irrational or arbitrary].) … Had the Legislature intended to establish a rebuttable presumption as Ortiz posits, it could have approved the language of the earlier version of the bill. We are unable to ignore the fact that it did not.

DISABLED & BLIND ACTION COMMITTEE OF CAL v. Jenkins

44 Cal. App. 3d 74 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 26, 1974

In their place a single program was established under title XVI of H.R.-1 ( 42 U.S.C. §§ 1381-1385 ). … Very clearly under section 12200, the income of either spouse is considered if both are eligible.

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.

Sanchez v. Rodriguez

226 Cal. App. 2d 439 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 20, 1964

Appellant thus contends that the nurse’s notes establish a prima facie case of respondent’s negligence. … Clearly, the propriety of such treatment was exclusively a subject of expert opinion.

People v. Gerson

California Court of Appeal · Jul 8, 2022

Friedman concluded that Gerson did not have a qualifying mental disease or defect at the time of the incident. … We reject the People’s assertion that the record clearly indicates the trial court would have imposed the same sentence had Assembly Bill 124 been in effect at the time of sentencing.

People v. Alexander

California Court of Appeal · Jun 25, 2019

protection claim, reasoning that “a violent felon confined in a local detention facility prior to sentencing is not similarly situated for equal protection purposes to one serving a term in state prison and enrolled in a qualifying … Moreover, even if a law applies retroactively, it does not follow that a person using that law to challenge a stipulated sentence is immune from having to obtain a certificate of probable cause.

People v. Kinsley

118 Cal. App. 593 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 25, 1931

Longino, was clearly not an accomplice. She was the purchaser. She did not sell, give away, furnish, etc. … The corpus delicti was conclusively established when appellant himself took the witness-stand in his defense. (People v. Kelley, 70 Cal. App. 519 , at page 523 [ 234 Pac. 110 ].)

Shaw v. County of Santa Cruz

170 Cal. App. 4th 229 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 19, 2008

The Shaws also argued that the evidence was admissible to show that the individual defendants were not immune from liability as they should have known that “the conduct complained of violated statutory or constitutional rights … Indeed, the memorandum decision could not reflect a prior, dispositive ruling on the due process claims because the record clearly shows that the court had not made such a ruling.

People Ex Rel. Lockyer v. Pacific Gaming Technologies

98 Cal. Rptr. 2d 400 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 27, 2000

These were the facts in Trinkle : John Trinkle and others owned vending and amusement machines, including “Match 5 Jukeboxes” that they rented to business establishments. … With or without those features, the VendaTel meets the statutory definition of an illegal slot machine (§§ 330b, 330.1) and fails to qualify for the exemption (§ 330.5).

Scarborough v. City of Lancaster CA2/2

California Court of Appeal · Oct 1, 2024

It argued that (1) plaintiffs could not establish that a dangerous condition existed at the location of the accident; and (2) it was immune from liability pursuant to Government Code sections 830.4 and 830.8. … They further argued that the City was not immune from liability. In support, plaintiffs offered an expert declaration from Brad P.