Case law

Estate of Kazian

59 Cal. App. 3d 797 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 30, 1976

By the same token, however, we must not rewrite the testatrix' will in such a way as to immunize legal proceedings plainly intended to frustrate her unequivocally expressed intent from the reach of the no-contest clause. … Whatever the underlying facts of Colden were, [5] the decision clearly has no precedential value in this case. Nor does Estate of Dow, supra, 149 Cal. App.2d 47 , aid Kazian.

Lewis-Westco & Co. v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board

136 Cal. App. 3d 829 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 22, 1982

Whether antitrust immunity is conferred on the price posting scheme under the doctrine of Parker v. … Appeals Bd., supra, 21 Cal.3d 431, 445 ), no antitrust immunity is extended.

California Insurance Guarantee Ass'n v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

10 Cal. App. 4th 988 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 28, 1992

If the obligations are so restricted, CIGA contends, the claim of Blue Jay and Jenkins, which is not based on a written policy, would not qualify as a covered claim payable by CIGA. We do not accept that argument. … Because of the tort exclusion, CIGA is immune from tort liability for violation of the Unfair Practices Act (Ins.

California Public Records Research, Inc. v. County of Yolo

4 Cal. App. 5th 150 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 14, 2016

established immunity with respect to CPRR’s causes of action for negligence and money had and received. … Judge White granted the motion on the grounds that the County had established that immunity with respect to these causes of action.

Walker v. County of Los Angeles

192 Cal. App. 3d 1393 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 25, 1987

Summary judgment is properly granted only when the evidence in support of the moving party establishes that there is no issue of fact to be tried. … City of Montebello (1980) 112 Cal.App.3d 658 [ 169 Cal.Rptr. 447 ] [dependents of murdered informant not entitled to pension since he did not qualify as employee of city].

Kings County Department of Social Services v. Ginger B.

207 Cal. App. 3d 504 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 25, 1989

If the Department cannot raise the issue, then clearly neither can Ginger. … The probation department shall have the burden of establishing that detriment.

Snyder v. Evangelical Orthodox Church

216 Cal. App. 3d 297 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 30, 1989

hardly qualify as ‘religious expression.’” … as religious expression and enjoy the possibility of constitutional immunity.

Flournoy v. State of California

230 Cal. App. 2d 520 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 9, 1964

And because of governmental immunity, reliance upon the preexisting right was nil—until MusTcopf. … It was clearly assumed by the court (and seems to have been assumed by the argument of counsel on both sides) that no cause of action could be pleaded under the 1963 legislation.

People v. Manson

71 Cal. App. 3d 1 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 23, 1977

In the Shea case the corpus delicti was established primarily by circumstantial evidence. As we hereafter note in more detail the law in California has been clearly established since People v. … Manson’s own admissible admissions established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence was clearly sufficient. b.

Cole v. State of California

11 Cal. App. 3d 671 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 28, 1970

While a vehicle may qualify as a “place of employment” (Lab. Code, § 6302; De Cruz v. … Unless plaintiffs offered to establish facts showing Mrs.

Pleasant Hill Bayshore Disposal, Inc. v. Chip-It Recycling, Inc.

110 Cal. Rptr. 2d 708 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 13, 2001

There is an undeniable measure of preemption intended by Congress, but there is no indication that it was meant to extend to immunize Chip-It from local regulation. … Garbage collection, as recognized by the legislative history quoted, was clearly deemed to be an unrelated concern.

Alonzo v. County of Los Angeles CA2/1

California Court of Appeal · Feb 26, 2013

right, and (2) that the right was “clearly established” at the time of the challenged conduct.‟ [Citation.]” … Second, the issue was actually litigated in the federal action, on Kennard‟s motion for qualified immunity.

In Re Carson Bulletin

85 Cal. App. 3d 785 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 25, 1978

App.2d at pp. 598-599): "The effect of the former judgment was to conclusively establish the existence of facts which qualified the Call as a newspaper for the city of Norwalk. … The Legislature has thus clearly declared its intent that a newspaper need not personally notify the city in which it seeks to qualify and that publication in those two specifically cited sources is sufficient.

Pedeferri v. Seidner Enterprises

216 Cal. App. 4th 359 · California Court of Appeal · May 15, 2013

We certainly possess the authority to exempt entire categories of negligent conduct from Civil Code section 1714's duty of care when such an exemption is "clearly supported" by public policy. … However, neither statute suggests or implies immunity for those who, by virtue of their negligence, distract drivers. (See Veh.

Pacific Gas and Electric Co. v. Hart High-Voltage etc.

California Court of Appeal · Dec 12, 2017

Specifically, “interest” is defined as follows: “Collectively, the word includes any aggregation of rights, privileges, powers, and immunities; distributively, it refers to any one right, privilege, power, or immunity.” … It is intended to more clearly define ‘damages’ by including indirect charges.” 31.  D. Analysis of Meaning 1.

Callahan v. City and County of San Francisco

15 Cal. App. 3d 374 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 18, 1971

Code, § 810 et seq.), plaintiff must establish the elements required by section 835 of the Government Code. … Therefore, neither the City nor its employees would be liable under the immunity provided in Government Code section 830.6.

People v. Taylor

152 Cal. App. 2d 29 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 20, 1957

to by the expert witness as well as other witnesses, he could give his opinion as such expert provided the subject matter of the hypothetical question clearly ties the other established facts in evidence to the factor respecting … In just what field a criminalist operates is not clearly shown by the record.

Granowitz v. Redlands Unified School District

129 Cal. Rptr. 2d 410 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 14, 2003

Both those elements were established. … In particular, it eliminates any possibility that plaintiff could have overcome the defense of qualified immunity because plaintiff could not have proved that defendants violated a right “ ‘clearly established at the time

ERA-Trotter Girouard Assoc. v. Superior Court

50 Cal. App. 4th 1851 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 26, 1996

(a)) means the judgment is immune from virtually any postjudgment attack. In a proceeding designed to be a speedy resolution of disputes over relatively minor amounts of money, this immunity is the cost of finality. … The latter decision mixes apples and oranges by grafting an appellate department rule to a proceeding to which it clearly does not apply.

People v. Williams

11 Cal. App. 3d 1156 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 13, 1970

Court’s Refusal to Grant Immunity to Witness Chapman. … coconspirator to whom immunity shall be given.