Case law

Investors Equity Life holding Co. v. Schmidt CA4/3

233 Cal. App. 4th 1363 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 13, 2015

Also ‘[a]s to any application of Hawaii law, including the possible direct or indirect application of principles of sovereign immunity, it has not been established that even if the case remained in California . . . a California … Defendants asserted that all of these findings “are now the law of the case going forward,” and argued the first two were sufficient to establish Hawaii’s suitability as an alternative forum, while the third demonstrated

People v. Smith

223 Cal. App. 2d 394 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 17, 1963

And I do feel that he’s probably not qualified to continue with his own defense, but because of our problems between ourselves, I feel I cannot continue.” … Defendant did not seek to cross-examine the rebuttal witness called to establish his past association with Jackson.

Medina v. Microsoft Corp. CA3

California Court of Appeal · May 29, 2024

hearsay statements in the district court’s sealing order; (3) his causes of action did not arise from protected activity; (4) moving defendants’ activities were not privileged; (5) legal research defendants did not enjoy immunity … To establish standing under the false advertising law, a plaintiff 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 the economic

Kasparian v. County of Los Angeles

38 Cal. App. 4th 242 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 14, 1995

Conspiracy is not an independent tort; it cannot create a duty or abrogate an immunity. … It allows tort recovery only against a party who already owes the duty and is not immune from liability based on applicable substantive tort law principles. [Citations.]

In Re Hirenia C.

18 Cal. App. 4th 504 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 31, 1993

App.3d at pp. 155-156 [grandfather who did not technically qualify as a de facto parent should have been permitted to participate in dependency proceedings to make the court aware of "`an important source of love, care and … She was clearly not a "stranger to the juvenile court" or just another member of the "general public," as the department would have us believe.

People v. Allen CA3

California Court of Appeal · May 8, 2026

In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found true an allegation that defendant had a prior conviction that qualified as a strike under the “Three Strikes” law. … First, ‘ “[t]he burden is on the party attacking the sentence to clearly show that the sentencing decision was irrational or arbitrary. [Citation.]

DeMartini v. Alexander Sanitarium, Inc.

192 Cal. App. 2d 442 · California Court of Appeal · May 24, 1961

A hospital is liable for want of ordinary care, whether from ineompeteney of a nurse or failure in duty by a fully qualified nurse.... … That he was attending plaintiff at Mills General Hospital would hardly be sufficient to establish agency by circumstantial evidence.

Martinez v. City of El Segundo CA2/8

California Court of Appeal · Dec 30, 2024

The test, established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. … To establish a prima facie case of discrimination, the plaintiff must provide evidence that “(1) he was a member of a protected class, (2) he was qualified for the position he sought or was performing competently in the position

Abernathy Valley, Inc. v. County of Solano

173 Cal. App. 4th 42 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 17, 2009

The Department referred the application to the planning commission since it could not determine that the lot was clearly in compliance with subdivision map regulations. … Of course, when the Legislature clearly intends a statute to operate retrospectively, we are obliged to carry out that intent unless due process considerations prevent us.

People v. Samaniego

172 Cal. App. 4th 1148 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 16, 2009

Gang evidence was essential to establishing the motive for these senseless murders and tying appellants, gang members, to them. … “When there is no parole eligibility, the [parole eligibility] fine is clearly not applicable.” (People v. Oganesyan (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1178, 1183 [ 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 157 ]; People v.

Orinda Assn. v. Board of Supervisors

182 Cal. App. 3d 1145 · California Court of Appeal · May 30, 1986

They establish “[sjpecific design guidelines ... for future development of new or existing structures.” … It also contemplates that at best, only a small fraction of any one zone can qualify for a variance. [Citation.]” (Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v.

People v. Adir Internat., LLC

California Court of Appeal · Sep 9, 2025

Given that about half of the fines arose from violations before 2016, defendants were clearly seeking a second advantage from this change of position. IV. … Even if we were to treat Civil Code section 1805.4 as using a serial enumeration of permissible charges under the Unruh Act, this section clearly places this enumeration in two separate clauses with different qualifying phrases

Hurvitz v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance

135 Cal. Rptr. 2d 703 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 12, 2003

The moving papers established that the policy gave St. Paul the right to settle claims against the insureds without their consent, that St. Paul settled all of Dr. … On this basis, the City clearly could not assume that [the officer] would forego later claiming the right to reimbursement and indemnification from the City for any attorney fees, litigation costs, or damages he incurred

People v. Mendoza CA5

California Court of Appeal · Mar 4, 2024

Putnam had no information suggesting that the relationship with this victim was established or promoted for the primary purpose of victimization. Dr. … “In order to commit someone under the [SVPA], the state must establish four conditions: (1) the person has previously been convicted of at least one qualifying ‘sexually violent offense’ listed in section 6600, subdivision

People v. Christopher H.

227 Cal. App. 3d 1567 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 28, 1991

The court noted the United States Supreme Court has never decided whether citizen’s arrests qualify as state action, although lower federal courts have consistently held they do not. (878 F.2d at pp. 1149-1150.) … Under part two of the Lugar test, there clearly was no state action here.

Aquilino v. MARIN CTY. EMPLOYEES'RETIREMENT ASS'N

60 Cal. App. 4th 1509 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 26, 1998

The concept of “unbroken membership” is clearly broader than “service credit.” … The Attorney General evidently felt that his interpretation was required in order to prevent someone from returning to work in a pension status for which the employee was not qualified.

San Mateo County Coastal Landowners' Ass'n v. County of San Mateo

38 Cal. App. 4th 523 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 18, 1995

, creating and implementing land use plans is most clearly reflected in the language of section 30005. … Public Resources Code Section 21080.9 contains a legislative finding which permits the Coastal Commission’s LCP procedures to qualify for certification by the Secretary for Resources under Section 21080.5, as an alternative

People v. Caparaz

California Court of Appeal · Jun 30, 2022

It was also established that Dennis lived in Vallejo. … First, the diagnosis of intellectual disability must be established before age 18, which would be difficult to establish when evaluating defendant, who was 45 years old at the time of the competency trial.

Provost v. Regents of University of California

201 Cal. App. 4th 1289 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 14, 2011

But the rejection went to the insufficiency of a signature by an agent, not to the well-established rule that a corporation acts through its agents and employees. (Gardner v. … On the other hand holding that an officer, as opposed to another designated and qualified employee, must sign a settlement for it to be enforceable under section 664.6 makes no practical sense.

Regan v. Lanet

197 Cal. App. 3d 353 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 30, 1987

The burden was on defendant in the instant case to establish “good cause” and he failed to do so. … The arbitration hearing was on July 11, 1984. 7 The judge’s order (see fn. 3) clearly suggests he was concerned with the trial going forward.