Case law

Tanimura & Antle Fresh Foods v. Salinas Union High School Dist.

California Court of Appeal · Apr 26, 2019

By contrast, section 66001, subdivision (a) “clearly applies to decisions to impose fees on a class of development projects rather than particular ones.” (Garrick, supra, at p. 335.) … (a)(1)(A)-(C)) nor qualifies for any legislatively-determined exception or exemption (see §§ 65995, subd. (d), 65995.1).

People v. Duffy

79 Cal. App. Supp. 2d 875 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 18, 1947

Such use of the streets and public places has, from ancient times, been a part of the privileges, immunities, rights, and liberties of citizens. . . . … These cases, admittedly early ones, are cited, first of all, to establish that, contrary to the opinion expressed in State v.

Wohlgemuth v. Caterpillar Inc.

207 Cal. App. 4th 1252 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 23, 2012

In reaching this conclusion, we follow established rules of statutory interpretation: “ ‘The goal of statutory construction is to ascertain and effectuate the intent of the Legislature. [Citation.] … Clearly, the primary thrust and purpose of the statute is that prevailing buyers receive their attorney fees and costs (Murillo v.

Allabach v. Santa Clara County Fair Assn.

46 Cal. App. 4th 1007 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 28, 1996

Discussion “The standards which a release such as this one must meet are well established. ‘To be effective, a release need not achieve perfection. . . .’ [Citation.] … Such an agreement, read as a whole, must clearly notify the prospective releasor or indemnitor of the effect of signing the agreement.” [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (Paralift, Inc. v.

People v. Sullivan

151 Cal. App. 4th 524 · California Court of Appeal · May 29, 2007

Mendoza (2000) 24 Cal.4th 130, 160 [ 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 485 , 6 P.3d 150 ].) “ 1 “ ‘The burden is on the party seeking severance to clearly establish that there is a substantial danger of prejudice requiring that the charges … Defendant qualifies as “precisely the type of offender from whom society seeks protection by the use of recidivist statutes.” (People v. Ingram (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 1397, 1415 [ 48 Cal.Rptr.2d 256 ].)

Heston v. Farmers Insurance Group

160 Cal. App. 3d 402 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 27, 1984

While evidence of the actions of the parties subsequent to an inquiry because of an ambiguous contract may be considered in interpreting an agreement, this allowance is qualified by a restriction that the actions to be considered … A dispute over the terms of the Agreement clearly had arisen at the time the January 25 letter was sent, even if no dispute between Heston and Farmers had yet occurred.

Law School Admission Council, Inc. v. State

222 Cal. App. 4th 1265 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 13, 2014

Clearly, the [LSAC‟s] stringent documentation policies create a gap between individuals who can afford the expensive assessment and those who cannot. … Clearly, [LSAC‟s] stringent documentation policies create a gap between individuals who can afford the expensive assessment and those who cannot.

Kim v. Westmoore Partners, Inc.

201 Cal. App. 4th 267 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 29, 2011

Block (1986) 176 Cal.App.3d 629, 640 [ 222 Cal.Rptr. 293 ] [declarations containing “general and vague charges” do not qualify as “competent or credible evidence”].) … That is clearly inappropriate. We need not resolve this ambiguity, however, because, as we have already indicated, the judgment must be reversed in any case.

JHS Family Limited Partnership v. County of Fresno CA5

California Court of Appeal · Nov 15, 2024

Manjit Dhaliwal was designated by County as its person most qualified to testify on the tax sale process and the tax sale of the subject property. … The County is not immune from liability for breach of contract. [Citation.] Because this obligation was in addition to the standard terms and conditions of a tax sale, it falls outside the tax sale immunities.

Merced Irrigation District v. Superior Court of Merced County

7 Cal. App. 5th 916 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 24, 2017

Third: Flexibly, so that it is possible for an irrigation district to qualify as a ―municipal corporation‖ when certain factors relating to the underlying purpose of the statute are present. 11 One consequence … ―The Public Utilities Code presently establishes liability for ‗all damage‘ to equipment owned by utilities, but does not define ‗damages‘.

People v. Rouston

California Court of Appeal · Feb 20, 2024

First, Rouston asserts that Jankowski’s opinion that he fired the ghost gun first, striking O.Z., was improper because Jankowski was not qualified to render such an opinion. … The court stated, “That would be clearly improper.”

People v. Russell

9 Cal. App. 5th 1050 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 17, 2017

So clearly she’s gotten our requests either by letter or by phone or both. [¶] And the fact that she is refusing to respond leads me to no other conclusion than that she is desirous of not speaking with us, which certainly … The People argue to the contrary that TJll’s nonresponsiveness qualified as a protest. Code of Civil Procedure section 237 does not define the term ‘“protest.”

Santillan v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Fresno

202 Cal. App. 4th 708 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 6, 2012

The trial court has wide discretion in granting a new trial motion that will not be disturbed unless an abuse of discretion is clearly shown. … That should happen only where the surprise is clearly established and its consequences can be avoided at a new trial, and where the moving party is not guilty of laches and acted in good faith in failing to seek relief earlier

Buchan v. United States Cycling Federation, Inc.

227 Cal. App. 3d 134 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 30, 1991

USCF contends that the issue regarding enforceability of the same release, as a matter of law, was clearly the same issue. … Let’s assume that this Court accepts that this is a matter of sufficient public *153 interest to qualify under Tunkl and that the only way that one can achieve status to become an international racer with all of the rewards

Squires v. City of Eureka

California Court of Appeal · Nov 14, 2014

immunity is not immediately available to the moving parties given the nature of the allegations in the complaint. … Clearly, Squires thinks it suspicious that Knight may have relied on an informant that Squires believes has no credibility.

Briano v. Rubio

46 Cal. App. 4th 1167 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 26, 1996

Coombes also establishes that liability which existed at common law is not a “liability created by law.” ( 217 Cal. at p. 335 .) … The drafter’s reference to “familiar concept” supports the conclusion that section 309 did not establish a new and unique liability.

Freeman v. Affiliated Property Craftsmen

266 Cal. App. 2d 723 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 22, 1968

It is the time of conveyance which must be looked to to establish the intent. In Neff v. … The provision in question does not indicate clearly, unequivocally, and unmistakably an intent to exclude the servient estate.

People v. Tatum

133 Cal. Rptr. 2d 267 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 29, 2003

In order to be qualified as a witness, a person must be capable of expressing himself concerning the matter so as to be understood. (§ 701, subd. (a)(1).) … Here, as the trial court recognized, Smith clearly had the capacity to perceive and recollect.

Komarova v. National Credit Acceptance, Inc.

175 Cal. App. 4th 324 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 25, 2009

In that event, unfair debt collection practices could be immunized merely by filing suit on the debt. … Now that the lodestar adjustment method is firmly established, a statute need not stipulate *350 that recoverable fees are to be “based on time necessarily expended.”

People v. Alaniz

149 Cal. App. 2d 560 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 29, 1957

The search and seizure was clearly a violation of the Fourth Amendment (U. S. Constitution). [Citations.] And the evidence obtained thereby was improperly received.” In United States v. … This testimony, if believed, rather conclusively established that the ear sold by Ramistella to the La Perlas was the stolen car in question.