Case law

Petersen v. Bank of America Corp.

232 Cal. App. 4th 238 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 11, 2014

The borrower qualified for the loan, when in reality the borrower only qualified because Defendants falsified income and asset documentation. 4. … The allegations of the latter practice, the court stated, “clearly reflect a claim containing common facts central to the alleged deception.” (Ibid.)

Stinnett v. Tam

198 Cal. App. 4th 1412 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 1, 2011

general propriety of such damages is firmly imbedded in our common law jurisprudence, “no California case of which we are aware has ever suggested that the right to recover for such noneconomic injuries is constitutionally immune … The California Supreme Court stated this rule clearly in Palermo v.

Rohn v. City of Visalia

214 Cal. App. 3d 1463 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 26, 1989

The board felt that the structure was of such character that it qualified as a historic landmark. On September 3, 1985, the Visalia City Council amended the local historic register to include the site. … Section 7429 permits the city to grant the planned development permit on condition the applicant dedicate, among other things, all necessary rights-of-way to widen a bordering or traversing major street to its ultimate width established

Lafayette Bollinger Development v. Town of Moraga

California Court of Appeal · Jul 19, 2023

as a taking of ‘all economically beneficial use’ ” of the property, establishing a per se regulatory taking. … A party qualifies as the prevailing party under the second prong of Code of Civil Procedure section 1032, subdivision (a)(4), if “the action yielded the primary relief sought.”

Baker v. Bay Area Toll Authority

California Court of Appeal · Jun 5, 2026

cause significant adverse impacts on the environment” that were “not acknowledged” in the 2023 notice of exemption; therefore, “testing of the lights must be recognized as a stand-alone project under CEQA—one that does not qualify … In interpreting CEQA, we accord the CEQA Guidelines great weight except where they are clearly unauthorized or erroneous.” (Muzzy Ranch Co. v.

Gerawan Farming v. Agricultural Labor Rel. Bd.

California Court of Appeal · May 14, 2015

establishes the terms of an imposed CBA to which the parties are bound. (See §§ 1164, 1164.3.) … Insofar as the parties have still not reached agreement, the discrete statutory requirement set forth in section 1164.11(a) was clearly satisfied.

Capeci v. City of Imperial CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · Mar 24, 2016

Clearly, Capeci's filing of his age discrimination complaint with DFEH on or about March 14, 2012, was not within one year of this alleged adverse employment action by City. (See § 12960, subd. (d).) … (d)(2), (1)), it neither requires a reassignment if there is no vacant position for which the employee is qualified (Cuiellette v.

Burns v. Jackson

59 Cal. App. 662 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 16, 1922

Such matters would naturally be left to the judgment of the driver, who was better qualified and in a better position than the employer to exercise such judgment. … The reason for the rule is clearly stated in the opinion of this court in Zipperlen v. Southern Pacific Co., 7 Cal.

State Compensation Insurance Fund v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

248 Cal. App. 4th 349 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 22, 2016

First, the Legislature required the director “to adopt a medical treatment utilization schedule to establish uniform guidelines for evaluating treatment requests.” … Generally, time limits applicable to government action are deemed to be directory unless the Legislature clearly expresses a contrary intent.

Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation v. County of El Dorado

202 Cal. App. 4th 1156 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 20, 2012

deciding whether to prepare an EIR or negative declaration,’ ‘[e]nabl[ing] an applicant or lead agency to modify a project, mitigating adverse impacts before an EIR is prepared, thereby enabling the project to qualify for … The legislation evinces no interest in the effects of proposed general plan amendments on an existing general plan, but instead has clearly expressed concern with the effects of projects on the actual environment upon which

People v. Barnett

17 Cal. 4th 1044 · California Court of Appeal · May 4, 1998

Likewise, defendant has not established any prejudice. … improper grants of immunity].)

People v. Teodosio CA5

California Court of Appeal · Feb 9, 2015

Such civil commitments can be extended upon petition by the district attorney’s office, provided it can be established at the civil commitment trial that the patient still qualifies as an MDO. (Pen. … Though it is conceivable that the investigation into Ahart may have concerned matters of or relating to her professional honesty, the record clearly shows that the material from Ahart’s reports that was noted by Saini was

People v. Michaud CA3

California Court of Appeal · Apr 19, 2016

However, defendant failed to establish she is entitled to the relief she requests. … In this circumstance, defendant asserts she is entitled to have the excess incarceration credited against certain qualifying fines at a rate of $30 per day, for a total of $90 here.

Antelope Valley Press v. Poizner

75 Cal. Rptr. 3d 887 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 30, 2008

Regarding the right to discharge at will without cause, that right is clearly given to AVP under the terms of the contracts. … Also, although the contract states a carrier has “the right to hire employees of his/her choosing and to [c]ontract with others to fulfill [the carrier’s] obligations under this Contract,” that right is qualified in several

In Re Estate of Odian

51 Cal. Rptr. 3d 390 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 28, 2006

He was qualified to assess dementia. On May 16, 2002, he visited Helen in her home. The visit was unannounced. Dr. … A "paid live-in caregiver" clearly provides social services within the meaning of section 21350(a) and is, therefore, a care custodian.

Sandoval v. Qualcomm Incorporated

California Court of Appeal · Oct 19, 2018

And third, that Qualcomm properly passed control of the switchgear inspection "to its qualified contractor, and that was TransPower, Mr. … The whole idea is that you're preparing the equipment for somebody who's not a qualified worker, not a qualified person, so that anybody can do the work and you put it into an electronically safe work condition.

Gonzalez v. Santa Clara Cty. Dept. Social Services

California Court of Appeal · Oct 8, 2013

On our own motion, we have ordered that all copies in possession of this court, the trial court, or the parties, be filed under seal. 4 Daughter flatly denied or materially qualified nearly every statement … A similar privilege is recognized in tort law: From 1931 to 1971, parents in California possessed a blanket immunity from liability to their children. (See Trudell v.

People v. Rios CA5

California Court of Appeal · Jul 30, 2024

Section 667.61(j)(2) applies when the qualifying offense under section 667.61(c) is committed against more than one victim within the meaning of section 667.61(e)(4), and the victim is under the age of 14 years. … “‘“No principle of procedural due process is more clearly established than that notice of the specific charge, and a chance to be heard in a trial of the issues raised by that charge, if desired, are among the constitutional

Breaux v. Agricultural Labor Relations Board

217 Cal. App. 3d 730 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 29, 1990

Dispute has centered on the propriety of union expenditures, over a member’s objections, for activities which are neither clearly political nor clearly for collective bargaining, and on procedures by which objections may … Recognizing the practical difficulties a worker may encounter in attempting expeditiously to select a qualified arbitrator, we suggest it may be more satisfactory to provide that upon a worker’s appeal the American Arbitration

Marsili v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.

51 Cal. App. 3d 313 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 12, 1975

Proposition T was an initiative ballot proposition which qualified for the November 2, 1971 election for the City and County of San Francisco. … Indeed, a court cannot determine that a particular transaction is beyond the powers of a corporation unless it clearly appears to be so as a matter of law.