Case law

Lewis v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

56 Cal. App. 3d 938 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 1, 1976

. : . plus constant slight but clearly apparent involuntary shaking of the head.” The award authorized “further medical treatment . . . including house traction equipment.” … Most qualifying cardiologists would rate this a possible risk factor only.” On reconsideration of both claims the board accepted the medical opinion of Dr.

Hospital Systems, Inc. v. Office of Statewide Health Planning & Development

25 Cal. App. 4th 1686 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 17, 1994

The court found that in such a case, the proceeding qualified as an “action” for purposes of section 1021.5 (attorney fees may be awarded to a successful party “in any action which has resulted in the enforcement of an important … The rule enunciated in Best thus clearly envisioned a court proceeding as one of the steps in resolving a given dispute, either before or after the administrative proceeding.

Botsford v. MacIntosh

76 Cal. App. 2d 452 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 11, 1946

Prior to his death in 1938, he had been a dealer in machinery and equipment, new and secondhand, the nature of which does not clearly appear. … I wouldn’t want to accept them, tecause I think it has teen clearly disclosed that the executor had an adverse interest in othis company.

Boas v. Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'n

51 Cal. App. 2d 592 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 30, 1942

We are of the opinion that no ground for reversal has been established. The respondent H. H. Bechtel is the assignee and agent of the respondent bank. … Even construing as a conclusion of law the trial court’s finding that the agreement is unsupported by a consideration, clearly such conclusion may be drawn from the contents of the instrument itself and from the other facts

Moore v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board

169 Cal. App. 3d 235 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 13, 1985

“However, ‘where the probative facts are not in dispute, and those facts clearly require a conclusion different from that reached by the trial court, . . . the latter’s conclusions may be disregarded. ’ ” (Amador v. … Assuming, but not granting, Bechtel has established the claimants wilfully refused reasonable work orders, the sole issue is whether the parties met their burden of establishing their refusal was for good cause.

People v. Oliver CA1/1

California Court of Appeal · Mar 16, 2023

Chatman ultimately testified at trial under a grant of immunity from the prosecution. … Specifically, Banks considered “under what circumstances an accomplice who lacks the intent to kill may qualify as a major participant.” (Banks, at p. 794.)

Haney v. City of Los Angeles

134 Cal. Rptr. 2d 411 · California Court of Appeal · May 22, 2003

Crossman (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 476 [ 258 Cal.Rptr. 370 ], Cyril O’Connor (O’Connor) liquidated a bank account so his wife could qualify for governmental medical benefits. … In these circumstances, the department clearly did not abuse its discretion in discharging appellant. The judgment is affirmed. Mallano, J., concurred.

Stanley v. Superior Court

206 Cal. App. 4th 265 · California Court of Appeal · May 22, 2012

In explaining this ruling, the trial court stated, “We simply do not have qualified jurors who can serve, and as a result, it was agreed that if we would have had only 12 jurors, we would start over, and, in addition, I believe … In Himmelfarb , the Ninth Circuit stated, “[t]he mere silence of an accused or his failure to object or to protest a discharge of the jury cannot amount to a waiver of this immunity.”

Kizer v. Hillhaven, Inc.

19 Cal. App. 4th 309 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 17, 1993

In examining the sufficiency of the evidence, “ ‘. . . an appellate court must accept as true all evidence tending to establish the correctness of the finding as made, taking into account, as well, all inferences which might … Code, § 1424.) 2 Section 72501, subdivision (e) provides: “The licensee shall employ an adequate number of qualified personnel to carry out all the functions of the facility and shall provide for initial orientation of all

People v. Denne

141 Cal. App. 2d 499 · California Court of Appeal · May 14, 1956

But the constitutional immunity embodied therein is granted not against all searches and seizures but only against those which are “unreasonable.” (U. S. Const., IV Amend; Cal. Constitution, Art. I, § 19; People v. … This was clearly correct.

Jun Wai Tom v. City & County of San Francisco

120 Cal. App. 4th 674 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 22, 2004

The ordinance also exempts certain preexisting TIC’s, established before July 15, 2001. … Guided by the rationale and logic of CALHO, we conclude this threshold requirement of a privacy violation is clearly met. b.

People v. Deay

194 Cal. App. 3d 280 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 20, 1987

The phrase "charges brought and tried separately" has a well established and long understood meaning. … Nor was the issue whether the defendant had committed multiple prior offenses in one criminal escapade. (5) It is well established that the issues decided in a case are those presented.

Air Quality Products, Inc. v. State of California

96 Cal. App. 3d 340 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 24, 1979

.” *347 Board demurred to the amended complaint, asserting inter alia, that (1) Board is not a suable public entity; (2) Board is immune from tort liability pursuant to Government Code sections 818.4 (issuance, denial, suspension … The power to enter into contracts of employment, to fix salaries . . . and to perform all acts necessary to carry out these functions . . . clearly authorizes the board to consummate agreements regarding future wages, in

People v. Foster

6 Cal. App. 4th 1 · California Court of Appeal · May 5, 1992

We assume, without deciding, that (1) competent counsel would have discovered Frank Morgan's statement (or its equivalent), (2) the statement would have qualified as an Evidence Code section 1230 [6] declaration against * … Given this record, appellant's 12 convictions other than the 2 state prison priors, and the views clearly expressed by the trial court, we are satisfied it would be an "idle gesture[ ]" ( People v.

People v. Salvador

California Court of Appeal · Feb 4, 2016

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 … Replace “the Three Strikes law” with “the STEP Act,” and the Attorney General sees the latter passage as clearly allowing the 10-year enhancements to remain on the life terms.

Melendrez v. D & I INVESTMENT, INC.

26 Cal. Rptr. 3d 413 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 29, 2005

In the event that both questions are answered in the affirmative (Borrowers argue), the foreclosure buyer cannot qualify as a BFP. … The second element required to establish BFP status is that the buyer have neither knowledge nor notice of the competing claim. (Triple A Management Co. v.

Abdelhamid v. Fire Insurance Exchange

182 Cal. App. 4th 990 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 22, 2010

The standard of review for a trial court’s decision to grant summary adjudication is well established. … A moving defendant has met its burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit by establishing that one or more elements of a cause of action cannot be established or that there is a complete defense. (Code Civ.

Burgess v. Coronado Unified School Dist. CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · Jan 11, 2021

Younger (1982) 30 Cal.3d 770, 782 (Kilgore); see Slaughter, supra 32 Cal.3d at p. 156 [“no absolute immunity attaches to a state officer who is acting in a private capacity”].) … When the privilege applies, “it is not qualified but absolute.” (Kilgore, at p. 778.) “Unlike qualified privileges, it is not negated by malice or other personal motivation of the publisher.” (Ibid.)

Vrgora v. Los Angeles Unified School District

152 Cal. App. 3d 1178 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 14, 1984

In that same vein, a portion of the contract appropriately entitled “Division 11 [f] Section IIP [1] Vehicle Performance Tester” clearly provides under the subheading of “Equipment” that: “. . . … Correlatively, apportionment of an arguably arbitrary sum could not qualify as a true aliquot apportionment of damages in any real sense of the word.

U.S. Grant Hotel Ventures v. American Property Management Corp. CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · May 11, 2016

The purpose of section 1717 is to establish a mutuality of remedy and "prevent oppressive use of one-sided attorney's fees provisions." (Reynolds Metals Co. v. Alperson (1979) 25 Cal.3d 124, 128.) … The Operating Agreement, as a whole, shows the intent to benefit USG, thus qualifying USG as a third party beneficiary.