Case law

Meritplan Ins. Co. v. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co.

247 Cal. App. 2d 451 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 23, 1966

It is my position that it is calling for an opinion of a person who is not qualified to give an opinion. ’ The colloquy that followed, between the court and counsel, clearly indicates that the case was tried upon the theory … In this case the liability is established by Universal’s acknowledgment of the validity of the Plynt claim.

Orth v. Superior Court

244 Cal. App. 2d 474 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 24, 1966

Ditto is the duly appointed, qualified and acting administratrix of the estate. On October 8, 1964, she caused to be made the first publication of notice to creditors. (Prob. Code, § 700.) … It very clearly established that the estate considered that no damages were due the claimant, whether $0.01 or $25,000, or, for that matter, $100,000.

Jones v. Wells Fargo Bank

5 Cal. Rptr. 3d 835 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 31, 2003

Jones offers three arguments against application of Financial Code section 1504 to this case: the statute does not immunize national banks from liability for tortious breaches of duty; it is preempted by section 85 of the … Here, both sides agree that the transactions include a loan and a forbearance that clearly provide for possible interest above 10 percent; there is no effort to conceal these facts.

Schmier v. Supreme Court of California

117 Cal. Rptr. 2d 497 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 4, 2002

Leiserson II also acknowledged that "if that opinion is published because it *502 satisfies the criteria for publication under rule 976 et seq ...., such status is also probative of whether the decision clearly vindicates … Contrary to appellant's assertion, Sehmier I did not establish new law.

People v. Kanos

14 Cal. App. 3d 642 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 25, 1971

The cases are clearly distinguishable. In Carrillo the search was of the third person’s, not defendant’s, residence. In Kanos there, was an unlawful arrest of a third person. … To hold that defendant could assert that his wife’s constitutional rights had been violated would be to hold that defendant can immunize his residence from the parole officer’s scrutiny by living with someone else, and thus

Thurston v. Midvale Corporation

California Court of Appeal · Sep 3, 2019

Plaintiff has established that Defendant’s website was not accessible under the ADA. … We decline to adopt what is clearly the minority position, and one which has failed to persuade any other federal court of appeal.

The People v. McCoy

215 Cal. App. 4th 1510 · California Court of Appeal · May 3, 2013

Defendant quotes only the first sentence and argues: “Clearly, the magistrate had already made up his mind.” We disagree for two reasons. … He then complained he was denied a competency hearing, in which he believed a “qualified witness” would testify to his mental state.

People v. Littlefield CA3

California Court of Appeal · Nov 18, 2015

In particular, the Legislature’s use of present tense language has often been interpreted as indicating an intent to establish ‘current’ requirements. For example, in People v. … The only criterion that must be met under subdivision (i) to establish a defendant’s disqualification is that the defendant must “have one or more [disqualifying] prior convictions.”

Wentworth v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal.

California Court of Appeal · Oct 23, 2024

Wentworth propounded the discovery requests to establish exactly who leaked the March 2016 letter. … There was no dispute that ADL qualified as a journalist. (Id. at pp. 1079–1080.)

People v. McClung CA3

California Court of Appeal · Oct 16, 2025

New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466, Cabrera concluded that a finding of serious bodily injury did not necessarily establish a great bodily injury under section 1192.7, subdivision (c)(8). … Therefore, it is not a legal impossibility that defendant’s conduct qualified as a strike.

Jensen v. Southern Pacific Co.

129 Cal. App. 2d 67 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 22, 1954

No. 149, naturally chose the latter as the more adequate and more clearly expressed and one which had been approved by the Supreme Court. … Under these circumstances we do not consider that defendant appropriately and adequately presented to the trial judge its desire for a suitable qualifying instruction concerning the circumstances which will excuse the violation

Ponciano v. Citrus Community College District CA2/5

California Court of Appeal · May 22, 2023

Less qualified employees had been paid more money and treated more fairly. … In addition, as public employees, Perri and Sammis were immune from liability under Government Code section 820.2, and the District was immune from liability under Government Code section 815.2.

Russ-Field Corp. v. Underwriters at Lloyd's

164 Cal. App. 2d 83 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 9, 1958

Code, § 533] the nice distinctions often made necessary are dispensed with, and the general proposition is established that no form of negligence on the part of the insured, or his agents or others, leading to a loss avoids … In other words, the argument is that the element of negligence must be present to qualify the breach of contract as an insured risk.

Reclamation District No. 108 v. Ash

58 Cal. App. 238 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 21, 1922

Maurice as commissioners of assessment, pursuant to section 3456 of the Political Code, for the purpose of levying an assessment based upon said plan and estimates and thereafter the said commissioners of assessment duly qualified … Thus the specific objection to the plan is presented and it is hence argued that it is beyond the power of the board definitely to establish the duty of water or likewise to establish a particular area which should be irrigated

People v. Mendoza

California Court of Appeal · Apr 20, 2017

Defendants attack the trial court’s justification for excluding the statements, which was based on Justice Kennard’s concurrence in Gordon, where she stated “it is well established that a statement made under a grant of immunity … The prosecution presented sufficient evidence for a reasonable trier of fact to find that defendants’ gang qualified as a criminal street gang beyond a reasonable doubt.

Brooks v. Eugene Burger Management Corp.

215 Cal. App. 3d 1611 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 28, 1989

It would have been clearly visible to the victim and his mother. “3. The defendants had no means of controlling the busy thoroughfare onto which the child wandered. “4. … Plaintiff supplied no declaration from a qualified expert contradicting any of the opinions set forth above. The court found that Northern’s declaration had negated the element of causation.

Herrera v. Farrell Construction Co.

10 Cal. App. 4th 630 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 21, 1992

Her supporting arguments, incorporating an impressive array of established principles governing family allowances, proceed along these lines: When presented with a request by a qualified applicant for a family allowance, … Herrera had a demonstrated history of noncompliance with established procedures and an express court order.

Woodman v. Pacific Indemnity Co.

33 Cal. App. 2d 321 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 12, 1939

Austin was the regularly appointed, qualified and acting scout master of Hemet Troop Number 47 of the Boy Scouts of America. … The judgment in favor of the Boy Scouts of America was sustained for reasons clearly set forth in that opinion.

Wilson v. Murillo

163 Cal. App. 4th 1124 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 10, 2008

On the other hand, conduct “need not be traumatic” in order to qualify as materially adverse. ( Shotz, supra, 344 F.3d at pp. 1182-1183.) … Murillo can clearly be seen holding up the sign a few feet from Wilson and his lunch companion. 5 Murillo denies the bartender attempted to remove Wilson’s chips and drink.

Thomson v. Canyon

198 Cal. App. 4th 594 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 22, 2011

While the facts are more clearly stated in the stipulation than they are in the pleadings, the critical point that the oral agreement and request for memorialization predated the purchase agreement and the June 2004 close … The parol evidence rule prevents reconstruction of the parties’ contractual obligations; it does not immunize real estate agents, attorneys, or other professionals from liability arising from their misconduct in drafting