Case law

Balakrishnan v. The Regents of the University of Cal. CA1/5 Case Details

California Court of Appeal · Feb 1, 2024

Rather, he contends: (1) the University lacked jurisdiction to discipline him because the victims did not qualify as University students, (2) the University misinterpreted and misapplied its own regulations and policies, … “Further, policies established by the Regents according to their constitutionally derived rulemaking and policymaking power, like the Academic Personnel Manual, have the force and effect of statute.” (Ibid.)

City of Sausalito v. County of Marin

12 Cal. App. 3d 550 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 30, 1970

Because the Case decision is clearly distinguishable, respondents’ analogy fails. … The factual issue presented was whether the circulators had produced enough valid signatures on the petition to qualify the question for the ballot. (Id., at pp. 451-452.)

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

ACL Technologies, Inc. v. Northbrook Property & Casualty Insurance

17 Cal. App. 4th 1773 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 24, 1993

This is contrary to both established canons and common sense. (See Reserve Insurance Co. v. … In essence, these courts considered it sufficient that ambiguity be established in the abstract.

Amerigas Propane, L.P. v. Landstar Ranger, Inc.

184 Cal. App. 4th 981 · California Court of Appeal · May 18, 2010

It did not address AmeriGas’s claim that Landstar breached its statutory duty under the FMCSR, which mandated Landstar ensure that King was qualified to use the flatbed truck. … The reason for enacting these regulations was that, “During the first half of the twentieth century, interstate motor carriers attempted to immunize themselves from liability for negligent drivers by leasing trucks and nominally

K.R. v. Super. Ct.

California Court of Appeal · Apr 26, 2023

As we noted above, we agree with K.R. that section 709, subdivision (h)(3) establishes a one-year maximum remediation period. … Afterward, he acknowledged that Ward “does seem qualified pursuant to the statute,” and that “she’s perfectly acceptable as an evaluator in this kind of case.”

People v. Walker

185 Cal. App. 3d 155 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 4, 1986

Before McDonald trial courts relying on the then-established rule (e.g., People v. Guzman (1975) 47 Cal.App.3d 380, 385-386 [ 121 Cal.Rptr. 69 ]; People v. … Rather, it should be accompanied by instructions clearly explaining to the jury the purpose for which it is introduced . . .

In Re Michele D.

111 Cal. Rptr. 2d 909 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 12, 2001

noting that there has yet to be a case squarely on point, appellant argues that the prosecution presented no evidence that appellant abducted Cameron by the use of either force or fear and the crime committed more accurately qualifies … In fact, we believe the taking of an infant or child in this manner is the prime example of kidnapping and is clearly intended to be within its scope.

People v. Le Baron

92 Cal. App. 550 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 15, 1928

not herself, or personally, manage or conduct said house; nor was she then about the premises very often, but that she employed a young woman, of the age of twenty-two years, and who was known as Dewie Dale, to manage the establishment … Allowing all that testimony to go before jury without objection clearly supports that conclusion, and as clearly does it place the defendant before this court in a position in which consistently or logically or legally she

People v. Thomas Shelton Powers, M.D., Inc.

2 Cal. App. 4th 330 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 2, 1992

The money, however, was not returned to the railway company—which clearly was not entitled to it. … The parties entered into a settlement agreement establishing a fund of money to be repaid to the relevant consumers.

Hastings v. Serleto

61 Cal. App. 2d 672 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 10, 1943

It was established that two or three bottles of beer were purchased on the occasion of the first stop and one bottle on the second. … The first of the above mentioned alternatives, the doin'g of an act with knowledge of its probable results, is qualified by the eases to the extent that the knowledge may be either express or implied or in other words there

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.

Reddell v. California Coastal Commission

180 Cal. App. 4th 956 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 29, 2009

Applicant suggests that establishing secondary uses is as simple as determining that all uses will be located on the second floor. … Such boards are vested with a high discretion and its abuse must appear very clearly before the courts will interfere.’ ”].)

Pizarro v. Reynoso

10 Cal. App. 5th 172 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 28, 2017

Failure to provide proper headings forfeits issues that may be discussed in the brief but are not clearly identified by a heading. … The uncontested facts, both as stipulated and found, establish that [Pizarro] did not commence and conduct litigation (i) that was unfounded and frivolous, or (ii) in bad faith. “4.

McLaughlin v. Superior Court

140 Cal. App. 3d 473 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 1, 1983

Civil Code section 4607, subdivision (a), clearly requires prehearing mediation of child custody and visitation disputes in marital dissolution proceedings. (See fn. 1, ante.) … Our conclusions also establish that petitioner is entitled to extraordinary relief from the enforcement of respondent court’s policy.

Dyer v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters

124 Cal. App. 2d 778 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 27, 1954

make application for membership in the Union within ten (10) days from the date of his employment, and must complete his application within thirty one (31) days from date of employment, and if found by the Union to be a qualified … Registered Pharmacists Union, 16 Cal.2d 379, 382 [ 106 P.2d 403 ] : “It is established in this state that peaceful picketing is a lawful form of concerted action by the members of a labor union (Lisse v.

People v. Talamantez

169 Cal. App. 3d 443 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 19, 1985

The autopsy established numerous external injuries to the victim’s eyes, neck, forehead and ribs. … The instruction clearly stated murder which is perpetrated by torture is murder of the first degree.

People Ex Rel. Department of Public Works v. Hunt

2 Cal. App. 3d 158 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 28, 1969

But, in relaxing the rule, it should be done only where the surprise is clearly established, and the consequences of it can be avoided on another trial; and it must also be apparent that the party has not been guilty of laches … They were entitled to call the condemnor’s staff appraiser, or any other qualified witness, to probe his subjective knowledge as to the fair market value of the property he had appraised. (People ex rel.

Carlisle v. Fawcett Publications, Inc.

201 Cal. App. 2d 733 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 23, 1962

“A publication may clearly be defamatory as to somebody, and yet on its face make no reference to the individual plaintiff. … If it be objected that the mere relationship with some public figure should not subject a person to a qualified loss of his privacy, the identical observation could be made logically as to the man held up on the street, the

People v. Spence

132 Cal. Rptr. 2d 621 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 9, 2003

`[T]he government has the burden of establishing "objectively reasonable" reliance [citation]....' [Citation.] … `Unless a statute is clearly unconstitutional, an officer cannot be expected to question the judgment of the legislature that passed the law.