Case law

Self-Insurers Security Fund v. Esis, Inc.

204 Cal. App. 3d 1148 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 29, 1988

Section 3700 establishes the threshold duty of securing payment of compensation. … In our view title 8, section 15252, publishes a reporting form and does not purport to establish duties.

In Re DeLong

113 Cal. Rptr. 2d 385 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 31, 2001

The rule “in Estrada , of course, is not implicated where the Legislature clearly signals its intent to make the amendment prospective, by the inclusion of either an express saving clause or its equivalent. … Parole shall be revoked if the parole violation is proved and a preponderance of the evidence establishes that the parolee poses a danger to the safety of others.

People v. White

35 Cal. App. 4th 758 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 1, 1995

“[Gilbert] clearly held that resistance provoked only by the robbery itself is no basis for a finding of implied malice necessary for murder liability. … And the evidence show, [mc] Your Honor, clearly show, clearly show, these people lied and he knows it. “This man is withholding information. He knows I wasn’t at that motel. He knows that. [^D . . .

California Highway Patrol v. Superior Court

58 Cal. Rptr. 3d 895 · California Court of Appeal · May 17, 2007

Sections 40610 and 40303.5 list the types of Vehicle Code violations that qualify as correctable offenses and specify the circumstances under which a "fix-it" ticket may be issued. … of things, including not only equipment but also fees, certificates, licenses, and identification. [6] We cannot conceive of a reasonable, but less literal, alternative interpretation of the statutory language that would clearly

People v. Buza

California Court of Appeal · Dec 3, 2014

Ct. 1958, the answer is clearly yes. Plaintiffs’ counsel conceded as much at oral argument. … Second, the decision in question ‘did not overrule past precedent or limit previously established rights under’ the United States Constitution. ([Teresinski], at p. 836.)

Rademacher v. American Broadcasting Companies CA2/5

California Court of Appeal · May 15, 2026

Because they have better immunity than you do if you got vaccinated. … Employees needed to be vaccinated by November 1, 2021, unless they qualified for a religious or medical exemption.

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

People v. Jacobs

93 Cal. Rptr. 2d 783 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 16, 2000

In a separate court trial, the court found true allegations that appellant had sustained three qualifying “strikes” under the initiative version of the three strikes law and that appellant had served three prior prison terms … Here, appellant sought admission of the portion of his statement which established that he obtained the tools from Will and that he did not know how Will acquired them.

Estate of Neider

243 Cal. App. 2d 102 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 23, 1966

In the cases upon which respondent relies, the testator provided language which clearly reflected on the distribution of the tax burden. … phrased in qualified language and thus did not raise an estoppel (Desny v.

Menefee v. Codman

155 Cal. App. 2d 396 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 21, 1957

Carpenter, the first paragraph of which reads as follows: “The well established historical distinction between libel and slander is already, by reason of its artificial, illogical and unsound character, sufficiently confusing … The court continued to say, however, that when in the same publication, which admittedly referred to respondent, appellant had said “Hunt up your psychology textbooks for that one,” that the appellant was clearly instructing

People v. Hepner

21 Cal. App. 4th 761 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 5, 1994

Finally, the 90 percent estimates clearly established a fair probability that any particular file would contain evidence of this fraud absent some basis for severability. … Moreover, such evidence would be powerful corroboration of Malcolm’s witnesses, Cunningham and Workman, both of whom had been given immunity.

Rossetta v. CitiMortgage, Inc.

California Court of Appeal · Dec 18, 2017

[W]e decline to establish a new type of actionable deceit: the negligent false promise”].) … To plead standing, 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 that economic injury was the result of, i.e.,

Honchariw v. County of Stanislaus

218 Cal. App. 4th 1019 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 8, 2013

Code, § 3534 [particular expressions qualify those that are general].) 3. … In this appeal, the question is whether Honchariw qualifies as “the plaintiff or petitioner who proposed the housing development .…” (Italics added.)

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.

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.

Diaz v. Professional Community Management, Inc.

California Court of Appeal · Nov 8, 2017

The court’s order reflected that the discovery cut off and other trial- related deadlines were established in accordance with the August 15 trial date. … A judgment or order that would be void in the abstract — because the court acted in excess of its jurisdiction when issuing it — is nonetheless immune from challenge if consented to.

Shuffer v. Bd. of Trs. of Cal. State Univ. & Colls.

67 Cal. App. 3d 208 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 16, 1977

Chernoffs’ section of 559 A, however it is clearly understood that he is currently enrolled in 559 B and if in the judgment of of [sic] his fellow practicum members and Dr. … It provides that a student will be so admitted “if he satisfactorily meets the professional, personal, scholastic, and other standards for admission to the graduate degree curriculum, including qualifying examinations, as

San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District v. Contra Costa County Employees' Retirement Ass'n

22 Cal. Rptr. 3d 724 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 28, 2004

The Board’s position is not clearly foreclosed by statute, as was the appellant’s in People ex rel. Lockyer v. Brar, supra, 115 Cal.App.4th at pages 1317-1319. … noted that insofar as the lawsuit targeted the council members individually, the asserted “basis for their liability was premised on their vote in favor of adopting the [voter registration] program, and voting is conduct qualifying

People v. Salazar

California Court of Appeal · Jun 28, 2022

The Attorney General concedes that S.B. 567 qualifies as an ameliorative change in the law applicable to all nonfinal convictions on appeal. (See People v. … The record does not establish that the trial court would have found trauma was not a contributing factor.

Bachman v. Independence Indemnity Co.

112 Cal. App. 465 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 11, 1931

Bayliss admitted this but qualified it with the statement that he wanted them to recover if he could "do it squarely". … This defense, if established, should prevail, but like any other defense, if not established in the trial court, must fail.