Case law

Madrid v. Lazar CA2/7

California Court of Appeal · Jan 16, 2025

Comparing its statements and conduct against the statute, it must demonstrate activity qualifying for protection. [Citation.] … Vasquez (2016) 1 Cal.5th 409, 418 [“[T]he plain language of section 425.16 is to be respected and . . . exceptions to the statute’s broad reach must not be lightly implied: ‘The Legislature clearly knows how to create an

People v. Robinson

185 Cal. App. 3d 528 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 16, 1986

That’s what I was trying to establish. “The Court: Your next question.” … Clearly, then, “the key to permissible unannounced entry is the knowledge of exigent circumstances possessed by police officers at the time of entry.” (Ibid.)

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.

County of Tuolumne v. State Board of Equalization

206 Cal. App. 2d 352 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 1, 1962

*356 STONE, by a qualified engineer, particularly where the manner of evaluation had been superseded by a review and equalization decision by the State Board of Equalization. … It would be clearly a property right, and it being incidental and appurtenant to land, it was real property.” (See also Merritt v.

Estate of Lynch

83 Cal. App. 3d 296 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 27, 1978

The Public Administrator was duly appointed and qualified as administrator on November 23, 1973. … It is clearly misleading, in that it implies a mutality of interest between assignee and heir which does not, in fact, exist.

McCluskey v. Henry

California Court of Appeal · Nov 2, 2020

Contrary to Mogan’s assertions, section 128.7 clearly states the specific criteria that must be satisfied to avoid sanctions and further clearly states that attorney fees or other expenses may be awarded as a result of sanctionable … Mogan also argues that defendants gained nothing by filing an opposition to the amended motion to lift the stay and therefore did not qualify as prevailing parties as defined in section 128.7.

Sterling v. Title Insurance & Trust Co.

53 Cal. App. 2d 736 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 31, 1942

Alice Bolán Emery died in Los Angeles County March 11, 1939; defendant executor was appointed and qualified April 4, 1939, and on that date notice to creditors was first published, fixing October 8, 1939, as the last day … That they referred to the debt evidenced by the note is sufficiently established.

J. R. Norton Co. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Board

192 Cal. App. 3d 874 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 15, 1987

The mere fact that an employee is or was participating in union activities does not *892 insulate him from discharge for misconduct or give him immunity from routine employment decisions. [Citations.]” … Clearly, were this a question of minimum contacts, Norton would be found to have established sufficient contacts rendering it susceptible to an in personam judgment in California.

People v. Williams

93 Cal. App. 3d 40 · California Court of Appeal · May 16, 1979

Defendant argues that the instant case is clearly distinguishable from Rojas and Quaintance , and that People v. … The errors which we have discussed herein are clearly prejudicial and mandate a reversal of the defendant’s conviction. (See Chapman v.

People v. Constancio

42 Cal. App. 3d 533 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 17, 1974

Here the officers had information based on the recent personal observations of an informant of established reliability that defendants had engaged in sales of narcotics from their residence. … Here, it clearly appears, the officers gave both portions of such notice. But in this case we are presented with a further question.

In re S.E.

California Court of Appeal · Mar 18, 2020

Clearly, the certified documents would be sufficient, termed derivative victims. … including, where mental health services were received, “a description of the services provided along with a statement that the services were in fact received and that such services were required as a direct result of the qualifying

Tillery v. Richland

158 Cal. App. 3d 957 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 1, 1984

Richland because “the evidence clearly shows that Dr. Richland is a decent and good man who saved other people’s lives.” … Richland because ‘the evidence clearly shows that Dr. Richland is a decent and good man who saved other people’s lives’.

People v. Moore

143 Cal. App. 2d 333 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 23, 1956

This evidence *338 was clearly intended to undermine the confidence of the jury in the impartiality of those police officers as to defendants and in the value of their testimony. … Knowles, 35 Cal.2d 175, 187 [ 217 P.2d 1 ].) “ The applicability of section 654 depends upon whether a separate and distinct act can be established as the basis of each conviction (citation). ...

South Sutter, LLC v. Lj Sutter Partners, L.P

193 Cal. App. 4th 634 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 16, 2011

South Sutter argues the attorney fees order nonetheless does not qualify for establishing a direct estoppel. … And the negotiation of such an easement is clearly optional.

People v. Muniz

213 Cal. App. 3d 1508 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 19, 1989

The Jaramillo court concluded: “Clearly it is the trier of fact that must in most situations make the determination.” In People v. … And as the court in Wolcott, supra, noted: “Subsequent decisions, however, indicate that injuries slightly more severe than those sustained by the victim in Caudillo will qualify as ‘great bodily injury.’ ” ( Wolcott, supra

Barth v. City of Chino CA4/2

California Court of Appeal · Nov 3, 2022

Barth’s complaint is based on two types of misconduct, both of which involve clearly protected activity. … And finally, given that Ilagan and Detective Beckman are immune from tort liability, there is no liability to impute to the city.

State Farm General Insurance v. JT's Frames, Inc.

181 Cal. App. 4th 429 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 27, 2010

ly] invalidate] literally decades of established practice.” … Our holding establishes that State Farm had no duty to defend or indemnify defendant with whom JT’s entered into a settlement.

Kolar v. Donahue, McIntosh & Hammerton

52 Cal. Rptr. 3d 712 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 21, 2006

To qualify for anti-SLAPP protection, the moving party must demonstrate the claim “arises from” those activities. … This is vastly different from a third party suing an attorney for petitioning activity, which clearly could have a chilling effect.

Cooper v. Equity General Insurance

219 Cal. App. 3d 1252 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 27, 1990

Clearly, Equity has not shown how it can amend. … Superior Court (1979) 23 Cal.3d 880 [ 153 Cal.Rptr. 842 , 592 P.2d 329 ] established a private right of action for violation of Insurance Code section 790.03. This right was removed by Moradi-Shalal v.

Zipton v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

218 Cal. App. 3d 980 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 14, 1990

Medical Evidence The medical evidence before the Board consisted primarily of the reports and testimony of four well-qualified doctors: Michael Jensen-Akula, M.D., *985 Internal Medicine (Zipton’s treating physician at Kaiser … defeating cancer claims of firefighters and police officers by requiring a burden of proof which is medically impossible to sustain, the Legislature may wish to reexamine the reasonable link requirement. 8 However, this is clearly