Case law

City of Coachella v. Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission

210 Cal. App. 3d 1277 · California Court of Appeal · May 25, 1989

clearly defined machinery for the submission, evaluation and resolution of complaints by aggrieved parties.” … As a matter of statutory interpretation, we conclude that the TALUP does not qualify under the requirements of article 3.5 as a valid “comprehensive land use plan.” V.

Prime Gas, Inc. v. City of Sacramento

184 Cal. App. 4th 697 · California Court of Appeal · May 13, 2010

This occurs in three situations: when ‘ “(1) the subject matter has been so fully and completely covered by general law as to clearly indicate that it has become exclusively a matter of state concern; (2) the subject matter … exception of Evidence Code section 1281 (records of vital statistics), and the work permit may be considered within the hearsay exception of Evidence Code section 1271 (a business record) if the officer(s) could be deemed a qualified

People v. Davis

85 Cal. App. 3d 916 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 26, 1978

Finally, only in the present opinion have we clearly indicated the propriety of raising and resolving the issue by a nonstatutory motion to dismiss. … Defense counsel objected to the seizure of defendant’s personal papers on the ground that it was immune under the attorney’s work-product privilege. The trial court rejected this argument.

Chirmside v. Board of Administration

143 Cal. App. 3d 205 · California Court of Appeal · May 20, 1983

The administrative law judge and the trial court both felt constrained to so hold by the “terminable interest doctrine” established in Benson v. … These cases established the “rule” that the community interest in a pension terminates upon the death of either spouse.

Hill v. City of El Centro CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · Feb 11, 2026

In any case, immunity is an affirmative defense (see Wang v. … The immunity conferred by Code of Civil Procedure section 818.8 concerns only commercial or financial transactions (Michael J. v.

City of Arcadia v. State Water Resources Control Board

191 Cal. App. 4th 156 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 14, 2010

As for the court’s reliance on Code of Civil Procedure section 343’s four-year period, it clearly erred. … While these documents appear to qualify for judicial notice, none appear relevant to the issues presented in these appeals. These requests are denied.

People v. Villa CA1/2

California Court of Appeal · Jan 7, 2015

She testified at trial under a grant of immunity. … Here, the packing slips, apparently prepared in the course of business, were clearly not primarily intended “to establish or prove some past fact for possible use in a criminal trial.” (Ibid.)

Westphal v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

81 Cal. Rptr. 2d 46 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 18, 1998

Plaintiff saw Robert Fugitt, D.C., one time on November 28, 1995, for a qualified medical examination at the request of the workers’ compensation carrier. … Although the award was generous, the court indicated it was not surprised and could not say the jury clearly should have reached a different verdict.

Muzquiz v. City of Emeryville

94 Cal. Rptr. 2d 579 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 14, 2000

This burden-shifting system requires the employee first to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination. … As discussed, the trial court’s statement of decision clearly addressed the ultimate issue in this case: whether appellant had borne her burden of proving that the City’s stated reasons for eliminating her position were pretextual

United Neighborhoods for L.A. v. City of L.A.

California Court of Appeal · Jul 25, 2023

“In interpreting CEQA, we accord the Guidelines great weight except where they are clearly unauthorized or erroneous.” (Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. … The report stated that, “[a]s the proposed project qualifies for the [in-fill exemption] it is exempt from CEQA.

P. v. Vega CA4/3

California Court of Appeal · Apr 23, 2013

Belcher acknowledged a grant of use immunity in exchange for his testimony. … Moreover, of the three, only Moriel might have qualified as a repeat inmate informant.

Veera v. Banana Republic, LLC

6 Cal. App. 5th 907 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 15, 2016

Thus, in order to establish standing under the UCL and the FAL, a private party must “(1) establish a loss or deprivation of money or property sufficient to qualify as injury in fact, i.e., economic injury, and (2) show that … Staples, Inc. (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 466 [despite order form that may have been ambiguous as to whether customers would be charged certain surcharge, form was not misleading because customers were clearly informed of actual

BNSF Railway Co. v. Public Utilities Commission

218 Cal. App. 4th 778 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 5, 2013

Public Utilities Com. (1995) 12 Cal.4th 87, 103.) 5 All of the parties here assume that the pedestrian paths that cross the railroad track at issue in this case qualify as public roads, highways, or streets within … The railroads argue that “because . . . sections 7604(a)(1) and (a)(2) incorporate 49 CFR § 222.21 for pedestrian grade crossings, section 7604 clearly requires the use of a locomotive-mounted audible warning device” at those

Rider v. County of San Diego

11 Cal. App. 4th 1410 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 23, 1992

This general understanding of article XIII B, coupled with the fact that section 2 of the article clearly addresses only the “redistribution” of excess tax receipts, compels the common sense conclusion that article XIII B … In order to qualify for an award of attorney fees under section 1021.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, several distinct qualifications must be met.

Endara v. City of Culver City

140 Cal. App. 2d 33 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 20, 1956

When this seemingly absolute protection is found to be qualified by the police power, the natural tendency of human nature is to extend the qualification more and more until at last private property disappears. … In the immediate future there will be a large industrial establishment in the zone all along the west and rear adjoining the property.

Mulligan v. West Coast Fast Freight, Inc.

151 Cal. App. 2d 791 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 19, 1957

The jury was also instructed that where there is evidence that a person did not see or hear that which was in plain sight or clearly audible, there is either *797 a conflict in the evidence or negligent inattention. … In the Carlson case, the court pointed out that the failure to so qualify a similar instruction was, under the facts of that case, prejudicial error; the jury had also been instructed that the law had been violated.

C&C Constr., Inc. v. Sacramento Municipal Utility District

18 Cal. Rptr. 3d 715 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 14, 2004

To qualify for such funds a recipient is mandated by regulation to “take affirmative action to remove or overcome the effects of the prior discriminatory practice or usage.” (§ 21.5(b)(7), italics added.) 2 SMUD has done … While I concede the point as an abstraction, it is difficult to imagine a real-life circumstance where that is so; clearly, the Department of Transportation regulation is not one.

Ibrahim v. Ford Motor Co.

214 Cal. App. 3d 878 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 13, 1989

Subdivision (e) establishes a pair of standards establishing reasonableness within the particular area of new motor vehicles — the vehicle is out of service for more than 30 calendar days, or the same problem has been the … Plaintiff was obviously relying on the presumption established by subdivision (e).

Tenants Assn. of Park Santa Anita v. Southers

222 Cal. App. 3d 1293 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 15, 1990

It was established by statute in 1967 that: “Any . . . unincorporated association, whether organized for profit or not, may sue and be sued in the name which it has assumed or by which it is known.” (Code Civ. … The court determined that COFAR had standing to sue because “[t]he need for housing clearly qualifies as one of the most basic ‘social and economic realities of the present-day organization of society’ and has been recognized

People v. Slusher CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · Oct 22, 2024

citizens of each state all the privileges and immunities of citizens in any other state. … Rather, the high court has “long held that the Privileges and Immunities Clause protects only those privileges and immunities that are ‘fundamental.’ ” (Ibid.)