Case law

Humboldt County Department of Health & Human Services v. Michael T.

154 Cal. App. 4th 897 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 28, 2007

While the ICWA clearly establishes a preference for tribal court jurisdiction in custody proceedings involving Indian children and provides certain rules for the transfer of cases to tribal courts, it does not prescribe any … An attribute of this sovereignty is the power of tribes to establish their own courts, and thus Congress has declared that “Indian tribes possess the inherent authority to establish their own form of government, including

Vukovich v. Radulovich

235 Cal. App. 3d 281 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 17, 1991

At the conclusion of the trial, the trial court issued a tentative decision in favor of the Board, finding as follows: “The Court intends to find that this dispute clearly involves an essentially ecclesiastical dispute and … The *294 issue presented there was whether defendants, church officials who disclosed to church assemblies details of a confidential confession made to them by plaintiff, a bishop of the church, could claim immunity from

Paul v. Los Angeles County Flood Control District

37 Cal. App. 3d 265 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 14, 1974

We must decide if section 2195, which substitutes a statutory form of liquidation of the lien for actual payment, qualifies as a payment that renders the deed void. We believe that it does. … But in any event it is obiter and not a command to us to overrule well established law to the contrary. FCD’s contention would render Nutting and Nevada Irr.

People v. Morris

192 Cal. App. 3d 380 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 2, 1987

A second sister of defendant, Rick, and Randy, Susan Marie Kreiter, and Kreiter’s husband, Douglas, testified under grants of immunity about the false alibi they furnished defendant at his request. … Consequently, it would be unfair to permit the People to *391 rely upon a stipulation clearly taken out of context to defeat defendant’s argument that the interrogation discussed above was improper.

In Re Eric B.

189 Cal. App. 3d 996 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 25, 1987

They reason that jurisdiction could be established pursuant to section 300 upon a showing that Eric needed medical *1002 treatment; but that once the need for immediate treatment disappeared, jurisdiction could not be continued … App.3d 391 at p. 396 .) (5) The only qualified medical testimony came from Eric's attending physician. He was asked "what would be your prognosis for Eric if he was not monitored?"

Mission Bay Alliance v. Office of Community Investment & Infrastructure

6 Cal. App. 5th 160 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 29, 2016

The guidelines are given “great weight in interpreting CEQA, except where they are clearly unauthorized or erroneous.” (Center for Biological Diversity v. … The potential impact of project noise on health is thus clearly disclosed. The FSEIR need not, as plaintiffs‟ suggest, apply a separate health-based threshold in determining the significance of noise impacts.

Shafer v. Berger, Kahn, Shafton, Moss, Figler, Simon & Gladstone

131 Cal. Rptr. 2d 777 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 8, 2003

to abstain from injuring [a third party] through express misrepresentation. . . . [1] • • • [If] • • • ‘[W]here one does speak he must speak the whole truth to the end that he does not conceal any facts which materially qualify … [If] ... [1] “[I]n immunizing participants from liability for torts arising from communications made during judicial proceedings, the law places upon litigants the burden of exposing during trial the bias of witnesses and

Miller v. San Luis Bay Estate Homeowners Assn. CA2/6

California Court of Appeal · Jul 31, 2024

It involves nothing more than the interpretation of legal documents, something attorneys are trained and qualified to do. Similarly, the trial court is equally qualified. … Saldinger (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 729 is misplaced. 8 The question there was the proper survey method for establishing a boundary line, a question clearly within a surveyor’s expertise.

Farmers Insurance Exchange v. Superior Court

40 Cal. Rptr. 3d 653 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 15, 2006

comprehensive scheme for enforcement by an administrative agency, the courts ordinarily conclude that the Legislature intended the administrative remedy to be exclusive unless the statutory language or legislative history clearly … of law, the use of any criterion without approval shall constitute unfair discrimination.” 6 Section 1861.02, subdivision (b) states in relevant part: “(1) Every person who meets the criteria of Section 1861.025 shall be qualified

Mark G. v. John G.

195 Cal. App. 4th 581 · California Court of Appeal · May 12, 2011

Bates severely criticized John for refusing to accept Chris’s true diagnosis, characterizing it as “clearly a form of neglect.” … Of course, an investigation was conducted by Bates, and we have no reason to think he was less qualified to make a sound recommendation than a CPS social worker would have been.

Wilcox v. Molina Healthcare CA2/4

California Court of Appeal · Apr 25, 2025

The special verdict must present the conclusions of fact as established by the evidence, and not the evidence to prove them; and those conclusions of fact must be so presented as that nothing shall remain to the Court but … Here, the record supports the jury’s finding that Molina did not know Wilcox suffered from a qualifying physical condition under FEHA.

Morris v. Frudenfeld

135 Cal. App. 3d 23 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 16, 1982

a new trial shall not be granted upon the issue of inadequacy of damages . unless after weighing the evidence the court is convinced from the entire record, including reasonable inferences therefrom, that the . .. jury clearly … A jury is uniquely qualified to determine the value to be placed upon such a relationship, and its net award will be upheld in the absence of proof of passion or corruption. Such proof is nonexistent here.

Espinoza Bail Bonds, Inc. v. Chuang CA3

California Court of Appeal · May 15, 2023

Cross-defendants also argued the litigation privilege protected the bail agents’ activities in the house while taking Ted into custody and that such agents have historically been afforded qualified immunity. … Our Supreme Court has clarified the two-step process for litigating such a motion: “First, ‘the moving defendant bears the burden of establishing that the challenged allegations or claims “aris[e] from” protected activity

Wilmot v. Contra Costa County Employees' Retirement Assn.

California Court of Appeal · Dec 3, 2018

Thus, a qualifying member is ‘retired’ as of the effective date identified on the submitted application. … The preceding discussion has established that this initial conclusion is faulty.

Foxborough v. Van Atta

26 Cal. App. 4th 217 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 28, 1994

In tolling the limitations period until the plaintiff has “sustained actual injury” (§ 340.6, subd (a)(1)), the Legislature used the term “actual” to focus inquiry on the fact of damage, and omitted qualifiers to forestall … Although there is a strong policy in favor of liberal allowance of amendments, the trial court’s discretion will not be disturbed on appeal unless it clearly has been abused. (Mesler v.

People v. Vessell

275 Cal. App. 2d 1012 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 2, 1969

Any evidence garnered at the lineups was clearly inadmissibe upon constitutional grounds. There was, however, no impropriety in bringing the evidence before the trial judge in the absence of the jury. … The fourth, after a positive identification of the defendant, qualified his *1020 testimony to the extent that his memory had been refreshed by attendance at the lineup.

Central Bank v. Kaiperm Santa Clara Federal Credit Union

191 Cal. App. 3d 186 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 17, 1987

These cases clearly support the proposition that money orders and negotiable instruments are indistinguishable once they are placed in the stream of commerce. … The contract clearly imposes this obligation upon Kaiperm, and the evidence amply supports a finding of breach. 5. Was the Contract Unconscionable?

Cal. Specialty Insulation, Inc. v. Allied World Surplus Lines Ins.

California Court of Appeal · May 17, 2024

The insured has the burden of establishing that a claim, unless specifically excluded, is within basic coverage, while the insurer has the burden of establishing that a specific exclusion applies.” … In this context, the phrase “another contractor” clearly means a contractor in addition to CSI.

People v. Farley

90 Cal. App. 3d 851 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 22, 1979

Clearly a quite different attitude is required when the court undertakes to determine and assess ‘preliminary’ or ‘foundational’ facts upon which the admissibility of evidence depends.” … objecting party establishes, by a preponderance of the evidence, a lack of capacity.

20th Century Insurance v. Superior Court

109 Cal. Rptr. 2d 611 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 24, 2001

The Legislature’s Power to Revive Barred Claims We begin our consideration of 20th Century’s attack on section 340.9 by recognizing a well established principle of law. … This disappointment, however, did not rise to the level of a constitutional violation because “[w]hatever grievance appellant may have at the change of policy to its disadvantage, it had acquired no immunity from this suit