Case law

Barnett v. City of Desert Hot Springs CA4/2

California Court of Appeal · Jul 24, 2014

A moving party defendant is entitled to summary judgment if it establishes a complete defense to the plaintiff’s causes of action, or shows that one or more elements of each cause of action cannot be established. … or more elements of the cause of action . . . cannot be established’ by the plaintiff.

Shapiro v. Wells Fargo Realty Advisors

152 Cal. App. 3d 467 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 28, 1984

In a series of cases arising out of a variety of factual settings in which a discharge clearly violated an expressed statutory objective or undermined a firmly established principle of public policy, courts have recognized … Although he alleged that it was Wells Fargo’s policy not to allow otherwise qualified workers to continue employment, so they would be unable to obtain optimum benefits, he fails to allege any facts to support this allegation

City of Lodi v. Randtron

13 Cal. Rptr. 3d 107 · California Court of Appeal · May 5, 2004

Only costs incurred for response actions taken under and consistent with CERCLA or HSAA qualify for reimbursement under HSAA. (§ 25350.) … The City failed to mention what authority that might be and the document on which the City Groundwater Site is listed clearly states it is the DTSC’s “List of Active Annual Workplan Sites FY 99-00.”

L.A Lincoln Place Invr's, LTD. v. City of Los Angeles

54 Cal. App. 4th 53 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 7, 1997

The Preemption of the Ordinance The city does not argue that plaintiffs were not qualified to receive the demolition permit. … less than all of the accommodations, as defined by paragraph (1) or (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 7060. [¶] (4) Grant to any public entity any power which it does not possess independent of this chapter to control or establish

Jones v. Superior Court

123 Cal. App. 3d 160 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 28, 1981

Clearly, the death penalty initiative is a more sophisticated law, intended to apply to more murderers. … However, the contrary result would create a gap in the special circumstance law for those victim transportations which do not qualify as kidnapings.

JOSHUA D. v. Superior Court

68 Cal. Rptr. 3d 715 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 30, 2007

Observing that “[t]he statute does not limit or qualify this guarantee in any way” (ibid), the court concluded “[a] holding that those rights do not include double jeopardy [citation], would render the word ‘all’ meaningless … Clearly, the last two sentences of the revised section 1801.5 accomplish this change. But what of the first of the three sentences, i.e., the one that includes the “all rights” language?

People v. Kim CA2/4

California Court of Appeal · May 17, 2016

Rather, defense counsel argued that defendant was not involved in the attack at all, an argument the jury clearly rejected when it convicted appellant of felony battery. … The rejection establishes nothing more than that the jury was not convinced of the weapon identification.

Wygant v. Victor Valley Joint Union High School District

168 Cal. App. 3d 319 · California Court of Appeal · May 16, 1985

Finally, the Supreme Court did “. . . not read the new statute to preclude a district from making reasonable determinations as to the level and quality of ‘training’ or ‘experience’ which is to qualify for a particular level … Such a result is clearly in conflict with the mandate of Education Code section 45028 that uniform allowance be provided on the salary schedule for years of training and years of experience.

People v. One 1941 Mercury Sedan, Engine No. 302286

74 Cal. App. 2d 199 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 29, 1946

He was not required to establish the authenticity, identity, or origin of the blood; those facts were proved by other witnesses. ’ ’ In State v. … This is clearly a non sequitur. All that the courts were there concerned with was whether the results of voluntary examinations were admissible.

Antelope Valley Groundwater Cases

California Court of Appeal · Dec 9, 2020

Bui (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 1187, 1196), and Phelan has made no showing such discretion was clearly abused here (cf. Shaw v. … La Jolla Shores Clubdominium Homeowners Assn. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 249) as a blanket immunity defense (Affan, supra, at pp. 938–940), and therefore never examined whether the requisite facts had been established to invoke that

Tayefeh v. Kern Medical Center CA5

California Court of Appeal · Jan 29, 2024

Plaintiffs also maintain the trial court erred in finding KMC was immune from liability. … Pont’s testimony established he is a board certified physician in endocrinology and internal medicine.

People v. Phillips

188 Cal. App. 4th 1383 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 5, 2010

Clearly this first person has violated section 647.6, subdivision (a). … Phillips is correct that Penal Code section 647.6, subdivision (a)(2) clearly requires that the defendant target a specific victim.

Gherman v. Colburn

72 Cal. App. 3d 544 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 10, 1977

[If] I clearly recall asking that you instruct your clients to cease any dealings purportedly on behalf of Mr. … The contention is clearly a post-trial afterthought. Appellants also complain that the jury awarded speculative damages.

City of San Clemente v. Dept. of Transportation

California Court of Appeal · Jun 29, 2023

However, the Reserve argue “the context clearly requires” an exception. They argued a defendant who benefited from a dismissal may not be entitled to costs “where a lawsuit . . . … These points are irrelevant to the question whether the Reserve’s litigation qualifies as conduct that adversely impacts important public rights and interests.

Foggy v. Ralph F. Clark & Associates, Inc.

192 Cal. App. 3d 1204 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 23, 1987

s determination that the filing of the notice of appeal divested it of jurisdiction to hear the remaining motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and to vacate the judgment and enter a different judgment. *1213 Clearly … Peter had never previously been qualified as an expert; prior to testifying she had not been asked by plaintiffs’ counsel to render an opinion as to the value of the property for any particular date; and she was unable to

RCJ Medical Services, Inc. v. Bonta´

111 Cal. Rptr. 2d 223 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 23, 2001

For a state to qualify for federal assistance, the Secretary, customarily acting through the Health Care Finance Administration (‘HCFA’), must approve a State Plan for medical assistance, 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a), that contains … Absent a clearly expressed legislative intention to the contrary, that language must ordinarily be regarded as conclusive.’ ” The United States Supreme Court has noted that “the statutory language controls its construction

Epic Medical Management, LLC v. Paquette

244 Cal. App. 4th 504 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 28, 2016

Absent a clear expression of illegality or public policy undermining this strong presumption in favor of private arbitration, an arbitral award should ordinarily stand immune from judicial scrutiny.” … The legislative history clearly indicates that it was intended to codify the earlier Blank decision.

Lubin v. Wackenhut Corp.

5 Cal. App. 5th 926 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 21, 2016

It does not argue that any particular posts would qualify for the ‘nature of the work’ exception absent the single- guard staffing model. … permit and authorize required rest breaks, and if it adopts uniform policy that does not do so, then “it has violated the wage order and is liable”]; see also Bufil, supra, 162 Cal.App.4th at p. 1199 [onus is on employer to clearly

Alexandrou v. Alexander

37 Cal. App. 3d 306 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 15, 1974

Thus, the surety is required to bear the consequences of the administratrix’ fraud and has no immunity not accorded to the administratrix. We have discussed the merits of St. … Clearly, the' judgment was consistent with applicable law. In Austin v. Wilcoxson, 149 Cal. 24 [ 84 P. 417 ], the cause of action alleged a trust.

People v. St. Andrew

101 Cal. App. 3d 450 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 28, 1980

trier of fact” (ibid.); (c) “the competency of a witness is to be determined by the trial court in exercise of its judicial discretion” (id., at p. 421); and (d) “sound discretion demands the exercise of great caution in qualifying … The evidence in question was arguably relevant to show that the defendant had a propensity to use female patients for his sexual gratification, as the prosecutor contended, but for that purpose it was *462 clearly inadmissible