Case law

Ramona Unified School District v. Tsiknas

37 Cal. Rptr. 3d 381 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 9, 2005

On the abuse of process claim, RUSD argued there was evidence showing defendants, by pursuing the second amended petition and the motion for private attorney general fees, had *518 asserted claims so clearly unmeritorious … Although RUSD suggests each amendment to the writ petition qualified as a separate lawsuit or proceeding, thereby satisfying the quantitative threshold for a barratry claim, the plain language of the statute requires multiple

Swamp Capital v. Shaw CA2/5

California Court of Appeal · Jan 21, 2022

of cannabis in the city of Los Angeles (the Immunity Certificate). … ‘We must accept as true all evidence . . . tending to establish the correctness of the . . . findings . . . , resolving every conflict in favor of the judgment.’” (Sabbah v.

Ryan v. Riley

65 Cal. App. 181 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 7, 1924

W. 671 ], expressed clearly the idea we have in mind: “It is easy to give general definitions of the three great governmental powers. … a statute, cannot so deal with particulars as to meet or provide for every case or contingency which may arise and of which legislative cognizance is allowable if necessary to the complete enjoyment of those privileges, immunities

Zavala v. Robinson & Wisbaum CA4/3

California Court of Appeal · Jun 17, 2026

Thus, ‘communications with “some relation” to judicial proceedings’ are ‘absolutely immune from tort liability’ by the litigation privilege. [Citation.] … Purported Recusal Motion Zavala contends “the trial judge clearly demonstrated his bias and prejudice toward” him.

Kettler v. Gould

California Court of Appeal · Apr 20, 2018

Thus, in cases involving allegations of both protected and unprotected activity, the plaintiff is required to establish a probability of prevailing on any claim for relief based on allegations of protected activity. … But the court clearly explained why a hospital’s peer review procedure qualified as an “official proceeding authorized by law,” namely: “because that procedure is required under Business and Professions Code section 805 et

Spinks v. Equity Residential Briarwood Apartments

171 Cal. App. 4th 1004 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 4, 2009

Beyond that, she argued: “The lease clearly establishes tenancy status for Plaintiff as a third-party beneficiary.” … Clearly she would need to be informed of what these rules were.”

Taylor v. Continental Southern Corp.

131 Cal. App. 2d 267 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 3, 1955

To have and to hold, the same unto the party of the second part, and to its successors in interest forever. ’ ’ The deed clearly is a conveyance upon condition subsequent, a reentry clause being unnecessary. (Papst v. … Cases dealing generally with the effect of conditions subsequent establish that such is the law. Parry v.

People v. Torres

California Court of Appeal · Mar 26, 2020

The jury’s findings are clearly contained in the record of conviction, and, as the Verdugo court stated, should be considered when determining whether a defendant is ineligible for relief as a matter of law. … Section 190.2, subdivision (a)(17)(A) lists robbery in violation of section 211 as a qualifying felony.

San Diegans etc. v. Har Construction

California Court of Appeal · Sep 17, 2015

Anti-SLAPP Statute A special motion to strike under section 425.16 is a procedural device that allows a defendant to obtain early dismissal of a lawsuit that qualifies as a SLAPP. (§ 425.16, subd. (b)(1).) … The fact that a party participates in a hearing to set a briefing or hearing schedule does not show a party forfeits arguments clearly set forth in a written brief on the matter.

Allstate Ins. Co. v. King

252 Cal. App. 2d 698 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 24, 1967

The record clearly establishes that Frazier was fully warned of his obligation under the policy to keep Allstate advised of his whereabouts during the pendency of the lawsuit and that he breached this obligation. … The adverse effect of the absence of an eyewitness defendant at the trial of a two-vehicle collision personal injury action was testified to by three well-qualified trial lawyers specializing in that type of litigation, one

Scott v. JPMorgan Chase Bank

214 Cal. App. 4th 743 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 16, 2013

ability to pay; (2) violation of Financial Code section 4973 (“predatory lending”) by acts perpetrated by Magnus, including approving construction loans to uninformed buyers, encouraging the use of false documentation to qualify … Scott fails to establish that the court erred in sustaining JPMorgan’s demurrer to the second amended complaint in its entirety. D.

McIntosh v. Aubry

14 Cal. App. 4th 1576 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 16, 1993

Background The Helicon Project grew out of County efforts to find a qualified, privately run residential shelter care facility to shelter and treat disturbed or abused minors under its charge. … The word “funds” is not specially defined in the statute but “has a well-established meaning in common parlance ....

In re A.P. CA4/2

California Court of Appeal · Apr 8, 2025

Khan did not qualify as an expert on the proposed subject of her testimony and ruled that Dr. … “A person is qualified to testify as an expert if he has special knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education sufficient to qualify him as an expert on the subject to which his testimony relates.

In re H.H. CA3

California Court of Appeal · Dec 18, 2015

Mother also points out that they qualified as nonrelated extended family members,2 making them “more than mere stranger nonrelatives.” … The record does not establish this exception.

People v. Robinson CA5

California Court of Appeal · Jan 25, 2024

In reaching its decision, the court explained that, “I have to look at the circumstances in light of the mental health issues that were clearly evident presented in the evidence at the trial and also in the probation report … The jury would have been able to clearly recognize that defendant’s newly developed mental health symptom was nothing more than a fabricated excuse to avoid criminal prosecution.

People v. Mooring

California Court of Appeal · Oct 23, 2017

This evidence is sufficient to establish Davis had constructive possession. (People v. … The “record clearly shows the court was aware of its discretion, aware of the applicable factors a court must consider in dismissing a prior strike, and appropriately applied the factors.” (People v.

People v. McKee

73 Cal. Rptr. 3d 661 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 20, 2008

The report shall be in the form of a declaration and shall be prepared by a professionally qualified person. … Furthermore, were we to defer decision on those constitutional issues, there would be lingering uncertainty in the law regarding the constitutionality of the Act, as it was amended by Proposition 83, an initiative clearly

CBRE v. Super. Ct.

California Court of Appeal · Jun 4, 2024

The undisputed facts also establish that no exception to the Privette doctrine applies. … Assuming Petitioners met that burden by asserting that the Privette doctrine immunized them against all stated causes of action, the burden then shifted to Johnson to present evidence demonstrating a triable issue of material

Sinclair v. State of California

194 Cal. App. 2d 397 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 28, 1961

The Legislature has the constitutionally vested power to establish a system of state highways (Cal. Const., art. … The phrase “direct and practicable” as an entity describes the type of location to be selected, and the term “most” qualifies the total phrase.

People v. Boyette

201 Cal. App. 3d 1527 · California Court of Appeal · May 26, 1988

This disapproval was qualified by the following statement. … Defendant contends the court’s introduction of the witness was tantamount to an instruction, but the court clearly apprised the jury when it was giving instructions.