Case law

Black Panther Party v. Kehoe

42 Cal. App. 3d 645 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 24, 1974

III (4) Plaintiffs assert a constitutional right to disclosure, immune from the statutory exemptions enumerated by the Public Records Act. … The wilful violation of any rules and regulations established for the conduct of a licensee is sufficient ground for the revocation *661 of his license or other disciplinary action. (Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 6863, 6930.)

Lo v. Lee

California Court of Appeal · Jun 27, 2018

Standard of Review The standard by which we review an order sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend is well established. … Clearly, there is no way to quantify the intellectual and other benefits You received from the educational opportunity afforded him by Lee’s transfer.

Mandel v. Municipal Court

276 Cal. App. 2d 649 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 8, 1969

In concluding several general concepts which underlie and qualify this decision should be noted. … For yet another reason, as indicated by the majority, Mandel claims constitutional immunity from prosecution.

Plaggmier v. City of San Jose

101 Cal. App. 3d 842 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 5, 1980

They included conclusions of law, and the court substantially reiterated them as such, *851 but the court’s essential determinations are more clearly stated in the four “findings.” We quote them as follows: “23. … We disagree with this determination. *855 The term “owner” is not defined in CEQA, nor in the State EIR Guidelines, nor in the pertinent provisions of the San Jose Municipal Code, but it is not qualified in point of time

People v. Standridge CA5

California Court of Appeal · Nov 16, 2021

The district attorney clearly had the opportunity to place any objections on the record that may have been raised in the closed session about Mr. … The People assert the disputed factual part of the question is that defendant failed to present evidence from a qualified mental health expert of a recent diagnosis to establish the elements required by section 1001.36.

Communities for a Better Environment v. State Water Resources Control Board

1 Cal. Rptr. 3d 76 · California Court of Appeal · May 30, 2003

These two limitations, effluent limitations based on water quality standards, qualify as WQBEL’s in the 2000 amended permit. … The agency interpretation is entitled to great weight unless unauthorized or clearly erroneous. (See, e.g., Californians for Political Reform Foundation v.

People v. Lopez

205 Cal. App. 2d 807 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 23, 1962

But the rule is thus qualified in its correct statement found in People v. … edition, page 170: “Since the law will justify a homicide only when it appeared to the slayer, as a reasonable man, to have been necessary, it must also appear that the degree of resistance on the part of the slayer was not clearly

Wong Kit v. Crescent Creamery Co.

87 Cal. App. 563 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 14, 1927

Undoubtedly, the act of accelerating his speed when he arrived at the center line of the street was caused by some reason or some purpose which suddenly occurred to him, and clearly the jury could very properly have concluded … Nor is the driver of an automobile necessarily immune from liability for injuries to other persons occurring in a public street by merely showing that at the time of the accident he was running at a rate of speed of twelve

Talbot v. Wake

74 Cal. App. 3d 428 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 30, 1977

Therefore, even if we have erred in approving the manner in which the documents were received and maintained in this case, section 6427 and the validating act would render the assessment and bond immune from collateral attack … They clearly do, insofar as the original validity of the assessment and the bond issued therein are concerned. (See City of Baldwin Park v. Stoskus (1972) 8 Cal.3d 563, 570 [ 105 Cal.Rptr. 325 , 503 P.2d 1333 ].)

John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Greer

60 Cal. App. 4th 877 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 9, 1998

As Hancock argued below: “[T]he term ‘disabled,’ as used in Form B and adopted by John Hancock was not qualified or limited in any fashion by the Legislature.” … The court held: “[The statute] clearly reflects a legislative mandate that if an insured is not disabled for two years after issuance of the policy, then his claim for benefits cannot be denied on the grounds that he had

Law Offices of Dixon R. Howell v. Valley

29 Cal. Rptr. 3d 499 · California Court of Appeal · May 27, 2005

Summary judgment should have been granted because Law Firm: (a) established all elements of its breach of contract claim; (b) negated the defense of estoppel under section 6201 by establishing that Client waived his right … We note that the mere fact that Law Firm incurred litigation expense ( ibid. ) does not establish prejudice.

People v. Baldwin

62 Cal. App. 3d 727 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 14, 1976

The same is true of Baldwin here, who was behind the door at the time of the arrest of Martinez and clearly could not help overhearing it. … Vasquez, 1 Cal.App.3d 769 [ 82 Cal.Rptr. 131 ], 15 The court carefully qualified the quoted statement by the following sentence: “We do not here hold that only the smell of contraband and nothing more would justify seizing

Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency

126 Cal. Rptr. 2d 441 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 21, 2002

The problem with this argument is that it focuses on the establishment of a regulatory standard as a threshold of significance; it ignores the real issue here—the application of an established regulatory standard in a way … But Guidelines section 15378(b)(5) flatly exempts from CEQA those qualifying activities “which are not physical changes in the environment,” even if those activities may cause physical changes in the environment.

Osborn v. Mission Ready Mix

224 Cal. App. 3d 104 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 26, 1990

A review of Beauchamp makes it even more apparent that the obvious nature of a danger is not, in and of itself, sufficient to establish that the owner of the premises on which the danger is located is not liable for injuries … After reading through this discussion, it seems that the trial court and plaintiffs' attorney were both correct as to the state of the relevant law, and that the error arose during the drafting process, when the qualifying

People v. Arevalo

California Court of Appeal · Apr 14, 2014

Jillian Zoccoli’s Testimony Jillian Zoccoli, a forensic scientist at the Crime Lab and qualified DNA expert witness, testified she worked on the DNA evidence in this case. … In Mikes the object from which the fingerprint evidence was obtained was clearly related to the crime. There was no question it was the murder weapon. (Ibid.)

Selinger v. City Council

216 Cal. App. 3d 259 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 13, 1989

The Permit Streamlining Act includes no such qualifying language. … The Subdivision Map Act establishes general statewide criteria for land development planning and enables cities and counties to regulate the details of subdivisions.

Saucedo v. County of Humboldt CA1/4

California Court of Appeal · Nov 7, 2025

The disputed issue is whether the complaint’s allegations establish that such interaction was an essential function of her position. … As discussed above, the job descriptions here do not clearly establish that every “illustrative” task should be considered essential for FEHA purposes.

Jackson v. Johnson

5 Cal. App. 4th 1350 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 29, 1992

Therefore, it further appears the majority’s holding this case involved nothing more than simple negligence is clearly erroneous. … That the plaintiff applied and was qualified for a job for which the employer was seeking applicants; “c. That despite being qualified, the plaintiff was rejected; and, “d.

Cordova v. Ford

246 Cal. App. 2d 180 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 7, 1966

Since plaintiff was in exclusive control of her ovm vehicle, the requisite exclusive control in defendant was not established. … We conclude that the second and third conditions for the application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur were not met and that the trial court was clearly justified in refusing to give the instructions in question.

People v. Vallery CA2/7

California Court of Appeal · Jan 12, 2023

him for the death penalty under the felony-murder rule and the other where the conduct was insufficient to qualify for the death penalty. … The Special-circumstance Instruction and Jury Verdict Do Not Establish Vallery’s Ineligibility for Resentencing Relief as a Matter of Law a.