Case law

Corbett v. Superior Court

125 Cal. Rptr. 2d 46 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 27, 2002

The instant case was filed under section 17204 and clearly qualifies as a representative UCL action. The third amended complaint includes two paragraphs making this clear. … Kraus came to the conclusion just quoted based on the previously well-established principle that the only form of monetary relief available under the UCL was restitution. (See, e.g., Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v.

People v. Seymour

239 Cal. App. 4th 1418 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 31, 2015

Since early 2013, he had done volunteer work in the immunization program at a community health center. And in May 2013, he had started training to become a phlebotomy technician. … He concedes that since he admitted two violations of probation, “he clearly could not claim that he successfully completed each of the terms of his probation.”

City of San Jose v. State of California

45 Cal. App. 4th 1802 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 3, 1996

Government Code section 29550 does not require, but merely authorizes, counties to establish booking fees. … In short, the Legislature has created what is clearly intended to be a comprehensive and exclusive procedure by which to implement and enforce section 6.’ [Citation.]

Pratt v. Pratt

43 Cal. App. 261 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 15, 1919

Samuel Pratt thereupon qualified as such administrator and immediately collected from two certain banks the sum of $850, which the said George Pratt, deceased, had deposited therein, but he took no further steps in the administration … Clearly, we think, that Samuel Pratt, Jr., performed his official duty and that he acted honestly and in good faith.

Scripps Clinic v. Superior Court

134 Cal. Rptr. 2d 101 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 17, 2003

(Gayer, supra, 231 Cal.App.3d at p. 525 [“filing a lawsuit is clearly conduct”].) … We agree the right to seek redress in the courts is a constitutional right, which is grounded “in the Article IV Privileges and Immunities Clause [citations], the First Amendment Petition Clause [citations], the Fifth Amendment

NCR Properties v. City of Berkeley

California Court of Appeal · Mar 9, 2023

This description clearly refers to proposed language that would become section 1954.52, subdivisions (a)(1) and (a)(2), respectively. … “A rental unit with a certificate of occupancy issued after residential use of the unit began shall not qualify as exempt” from Berkeley rent control, states Resolution 17-13.

Gurkewitz v. Haberman

137 Cal. App. 3d 328 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 12, 1982

It appears that the trust was established so that the trustees could act on behalf of the beneficiaries in all matters relating to a note which was the res of the trust. … The one-year provision of the statute had run when plaintiffs filed their action unless (1) plaintiffs qualify under a tolling provision of the statute, and (2) the tolling provision tolls both the one-year and the four-year

Reynolds v. Board of Trustees of the Cal. State University CA2/3

California Court of Appeal · Dec 13, 2022

The summary judgment motion In May 2021, CSU moved for summary judgment, arguing that natural condition immunity and trail immunity rendered it immune from suit, it had no notice of any dangerous condition, and Reynolds … Standard of Review The applicable standard of review of a ruling on a motion for summary judgment is well established.

In Re Bittaker

55 Cal. App. 4th 1004 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 12, 1997

The statute defines a “vexatious litigant,” provides a procedure in pending litigation for declaring a person a vexatious litigant, and establishes procedural strictures that can be imposed on vexatious litigants. … If the petition is clearly without merit, it may be summarily denied without any burden on or expense to an opposing party and with minimal use of court time and resources.

Hardesty v. State Mining and Geology Board

California Court of Appeal · May 16, 2017

But the fact the Board may accept as true “material” which would not qualify as evidence in a court of law does not mean it was compelled to accept as true all material contained in Hardesty’s documents. … “The mining laws were neither a guarantee that mining would prove feasible nor a grant of immunity against local regulation, but simply an assurance that the ultimate original landowner, the United States, would not interfere

Ebbetts Pass Forest Watch v. Department of Forestry & Fire Protection

187 Cal. App. 4th 376 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 10, 2010

The petitioners did not qualify as successful parties because they did not achieve their strategic objective. … Clearly one must have a well-defined legal basis in order to give rise to a claim of right but one must also prevail on factual conclusions that support the claim of right.

People v. Verlinde

123 Cal. Rptr. 2d 322 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 5, 2002

901 ], our Supreme Court explained: “[I]t was, of course, recognized that evidence of an accomplice, coming from a tainted source, the witness being ... a man usually testifying in the hope of favor or the expectation of immunity … Before a judgment of conviction can be set aside for insufficiency of the evidence to support the trier of fact’s verdict, it must clearly appear that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient evidence to support it

City of Carmel-By-The-Sea v. Board of Supervisors

183 Cal. App. 3d 229 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 10, 1986

CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines establish a specific process of environmental review which local agencies must follow. … Further, the LUP clearly differentiates between wetlands and *249 riparian lands, providing for different treatment for each. This may be so; however, U.S.

Carson Redevelopment Agency v. Wolf

99 Cal. App. 3d 239 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 30, 1979

[Citation.] [11] In life, and in law, there are many situations where advantages are received or withheld, and where persons do not qualify for them by narrow margins of time or circumstance. … It is clearly a desirable and, indeed, a necessary function of the Legislature to expand and change the law to meet modern conditions of urban living when the Legislature deems it advisable.

Metropolitan Water Dist. v. Superior Court

112 Cal. Rptr. 2d 513 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 23, 2002

MWD and CALPERS agreed that an engineer who worked at an MWD reservoir half-time "would qualify as an employee." … "`Interpretation and applicability of a statute or ordinance is clearly a question of law.' [Citation.]

Myron v. Cervantez CA5

California Court of Appeal · Jul 25, 2014

remaining six litigations, however, clearly constituted qualifying litigations that were finally resolved against appellant. … The requisites for this form of relief were clearly established here, as respondent’s motion requested that the trial court enter a prefiling order and the foundational finding was properly made by the trial court that appellant

Pfeiffer v. City of Sunnyvale City Council

200 Cal. App. 4th 1552 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 28, 2011

Our evaluation of appellants’ contention is governed by well-established standards. … The standard of review for an agency’s certification of an EIR under CEQA is well established.

People v. Soto

74 Cal. App. 2d 267 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 23, 1977

The first ground was qualified by a prior statement to the prosecutor: “You are not being prejudiced one iota. If it is surplusage, you are going to prove it at the point of trial.” … At the conclusion of the preliminary examination the magistrate ruled: “The evidence in this case clearly establishes the commission of the violation of Penal Code section 209 and further establishes that the two defendants

San Diego Hosp. Based Physicians v. El Centro Reg. Med. Center CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · Aug 1, 2013

The third allegation above—that the Hospital unlawfully retaliated against plaintiffs by initiating a peer review investigation—clearly arises from protected activity. … Governmental Immunities The Hospital contends governmental immunities bar plaintiffs' retaliation claims as a matter of law.

Los Angeles Police Protective League v. City of Los Angeles

188 Cal. App. 3d 1 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 19, 1986

[and] will not be disturbed unless the appellate court is convinced that it is clearly wrong.’ ” (Italics added.) … The fact we or some other appellate court decides to publish an opinion does not conclusively establish the underlying action “vindicated an important right.” On the other hand, it is strong evidence on that question.