Case law

Birschtein v. New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc.

112 Cal. Rptr. 2d 347 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 9, 2001

Cir. 1985) 765 F.2d 1129, 1138 [“We have never held that sexual harassment . . . that occurs because of the sex of the employee must. . . take the form of sexual advances or of other incidents with clearly sexual overtones … Nor can we agree that, particularly in view of Bonillia’s prior conduct, repeated acts of staring at a fellow worker cannot qualify as actionable sexual harassment as a matter of law, as the trial court may have concluded

People v. Elston

130 Cal. App. 3d 721 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 15, 1982

Thompson further explains: “What will qualify as a conflict of interest is an illusive concept. … United States (1942) 315 U.S. 60, 76 , ( 86 L.Ed. 680, 702 , 62 S.Ct. 457, 467 )] established that unconstitutional multiple representation is never harmless error.

Cassady v. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP

51 Cal. Rptr. 3d 527 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 29, 2006

Expenses common to both the promissory note and the consignment agreement therefore qualified for the fee award. (Id. at p. 130.) … Thus, while it may not be easy for Cassady to prove which defense costs arose from the scope of his employment, it is clearly not impossible.

Estate of Zlaket

180 Cal. App. 2d 553 · California Court of Appeal · May 2, 1960

(a) To establish such relinquishment of right, no more apt words could be chosen than those deliberately employed in the agreement under consideration. … In a more recent case, Estate of Brooks, 28 Cal.2d 748 [171 *562 P.2d 724], it was stated in effect that to qualify for a family allowance the widow must be entitled to support from her husband at the time of his death.

People v. Morgan

140 Cal. App. 2d 796 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 16, 1956

, 40 Cal.2d 876, 885 [ 256 P.2d 911 ] : “ ‘ “ [B] efore the verdict of the jury, which has been approved by the trial court, can be set aside on appeal upon the ground” of insufficiency of the evidence, “it must be made clearly … of the verdict the existence of every fact which the jury could have reasonably deduced from the evidence, and then determine whether such facts are sufficient to support the verdict.” ’ ” The evidence at bar abundantly establishes

Citizens of Humanity, LLC v. Ramirez

California Court of Appeal · Apr 19, 2021

Roche explained that “[i]f the record clearly discloses the terms of an overall compromise of claims requiring dismissal as a condition,” the rule that the dismissal was not a favorable termination applies. (Ibid.) … Owners’ Ass’n (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 2000) 759 So.2d 13, 16 [dismissal of a class action suit for lack of standing is not a bona fide termination because the “lawsuit might later be brought by a plaintiff who better qualifies

Zhadan v. Downtown Los Angeles Motor Distributors, Inc.

100 Cal. App. 3d 821 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 31, 1979

She was unable to qualify for credit or to obtain an acceptable cosigner and the loan application was rejected. … of the policy violated by defendant’s conduct, the degree and extent, both qualitatively and quantitatively, of the violation, and the financial circumstances of the defendant.... ” (66 Cal.App.3d at pp. 498-499.) *838 Clearly

STATE BD. OF CHIRO. EXAM. v. Superior Court

55 Cal. Rptr. 3d 374 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 28, 2007

It found that some of her acts qualified as "protected disclosures" in the rubric of whistleblower cases, but only two of her claims of adverse actions satisfied the legal standard. … Where liability has been established, the injured party shall also be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees as provided by law.

Laguna Royale Owners Assn. v. Darger

119 Cal. App. 3d 670 · California Court of Appeal · May 28, 1981

However, State law restricts more than four (4) transfers of undivided interests, without qualifying as a subdivision.’” … Insofar as approval was withheld based on multiple ownership alone, Association’s action was clearly unreasonable. In the first place, multiple ownership has no necessary connection to intensive use.

Silver v. Boatwright Home Inspection, Inc.

97 Cal. App. 4th 443 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 4, 2002

All expenses incurred with respect to [such common issues] qualify for award.” … Here, the subject provision was clearly stated in the parties’ contract and not buried in fine print.

Kunau v. Superior Court CA3

California Court of Appeal · May 1, 2026

“However, this broad grant of immunity is subject to the exception contained in . . . section 815.6 for certain ministerial acts not subject to the exercise of discretion.” (Danielson v. … We think the answer is clearly, “no.” Redding Municipal Code section 13.40.040, subdivision (A) does not direct the parks foreman to maintain trees in any particular way.

Interstate Marina Development Co. v. County of Los Angeles

155 Cal. App. 3d 435 · California Court of Appeal · May 7, 1984

Such rational basis is clearly present here. In addition to being reasonable, the County rent law was also necessary. … Otherwise, one would be able to obtain immunity from state regulation by making private contractual arrangements.

Grassilli v. Barr

48 Cal. Rptr. 3d 715 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 13, 2006

This instruction was qualified by an additional instruction applicable to the two instances when a prosecutor was involved in the decision to bring charges against Grassilli (the Pen. … Clearly, defendants’ conduct was highly reprehensible. However, it was not sufficiently blameworthy to warrant such high awards.

State Ex Rel. Metz v. Ccc Information Services, Inc.

57 Cal. Rptr. 3d 156 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 5, 2007

“The standards we employ in interpreting statutes of limitation are well established. … In any event, the most recent acts alleged by Metz do not qualify as overt acts because they were made after the primary purpose of the alleged conspiracy had been realized—the inducement of an unfair insurance settlement

People v. Lyon

135 Cal. App. 2d 558 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 22, 1955

Immunity from prosecution was offered to Patterson and the witnesses there testifying. At the trial Mrs. Patterson testified about the trip to appellant Lyon’s office. … Bennett , *585 supra, as to the grounds of change of venue, no superior court judge in San Diego County was qualified to try the instant case; that the question of their disqualification should have been determined under

Michelson v. Camp

72 Cal. App. 4th 955 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 7, 1999

A foreclosure sale establishes the actual value of the security. . . . … The full credit bid rule was not intended to immunize wrongdoers from the consequences of their fraudulent acts.” ( 10 Cal.4th at p. 1246 , fn. omitted.)

Bohbot v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board

34 Cal. Rptr. 3d 827 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 13, 2005

It established limits on the rent which could be charged and the grounds on which tenants could be evicted. It also regulated the removal of controlled rental units from the housing market. … Clearly, it was not intended to address any perceived deficiency in TORCA.

Save the Welwood Murray Memorial Library Committee v. City Council

215 Cal. App. 3d 1003 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 16, 1989

Thereafter, the question of the acceptance of this deed and the execution of an agreement by City to facilitate the carrying out of the deed’s conditions was submitted to, and approved by, the qualified electors of City. … White, provided, in relevant part: “This conveyance is made upon the condition that the said City of Palm Springs either directly or through the Palm Springs Library Association, establish within two years from and after

People v. Sistrunk CA2/7

California Court of Appeal · Nov 6, 2024

“‘If the petition and record in the case establish conclusively that the defendant is ineligible for relief, the trial court may dismiss the petition. [Citation.] … Neither theory qualifies for relief under section 1172.6. (See, e.g., People v.

Ocean Shore Railroad Co. v. Doelger

179 Cal. App. 2d 222 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 28, 1960

Langert to have been a qualified witness, the record reveals that he was unable to lay the requisite foundation for the admission of Exhibits 31-A and 31-B. … Since the witness did not establish the mode of preparing Exhibit 31-B the court properly excluded the exhibit and its derivative 31-A.