Case law

Farnam v. State of California

101 Cal. Rptr. 2d 642 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 28, 2000

Application of Neighbarger to the Facts of this Case This brings us back to the basic tests of Neighbarger : "[T]he doctrine of assumption of risk properly bars a plaintiffs claim only when it can be established that, because … It seems clear to me and seems clearly applicable to our case.

Pavicich v. Santucci

102 Cal. Rptr. 2d 125 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 8, 2000

The insured’s conspiracy cause of action against the insurer and the attorneys who had arranged the settlement was upheld since the settlement clearly violated the attorney’s fiduciary duty to the insured plaintiff.” … This is because of the principle that “where one does speak he must speak the whole truth to the end that he does not conceal any facts which materially qualify those stated. [Citation.]

Prevost v. First Western Bank

193 Cal. App. 3d 1492 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 4, 1987

First Western failed to plead the defense of qualified privilege under Civil Code section 47, subdivision 3 or argue qualified privilege in its motion for summary judgment. … There is clearly a factual conflict on this latter point.

Mission Beverage Co. v. Pabst Brewing Co.

California Court of Appeal · Sep 25, 2017

Arbitration conducted pursuant to the Mandatory Fee Arbitration Act (§ 6200 et seq.) qualifies as an official proceeding because such arbitration is “established by statute to address a particular type of dispute” and is … The privilege immunizes a defendant from liability for all claims (other than malicious prosecution) based on privileged communications (Flatley v.

Dill v. Claims Administration Services, Inc.

178 Cal. App. 3d 1184 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 20, 1986

In other words, the insurer would retain immunity from lawsuit as the 'alter ego’ of the employer.” … Defendants Farmers and Wishman, its agents, are clearly not the employer’s insurers and at least on the face of the complaint are subject to civil suit as third parties.

FRIENDS OF EAST WILLITS VALLEY v. County of Mendocino

123 Cal. Rptr. 2d 708 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 14, 2002

The record establishes that more than 70 percent of Tribe member’s households have incomes below 50 percent of the median in the County. … There is no failure of consideration. * See footnote, ante, page 191. 11 Policy 1.4e provides that “[qualifying housing projects which substantially advance Housing Element goals or quantified objectives for the production

Cerna v. City of Oakland

75 Cal. Rptr. 3d 168 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 11, 2008

While the statute was undoubtedly meant to protect schoolchildren, and perhaps deserves a broad interpretation to effectuate that intent, the statute also clearly establishes three categories of crosswalks: crosswalks contiguous … The District asserted immunity for off-campus student injuries under section 44808.

Taylor v. Fishbaugh

26 Cal. App. 2d 300 · California Court of Appeal · May 10, 1938

Baird, 9 Cal. (2d) 353 [ 70 Pac. (2d) 915 ], the Supreme Court approved of the ruling in the Rasmussen case in the following language: “The qualifications of a witness to testify in a malpractice case are definitely and clearly … established by the decisions of the courts of this state.

Visalia Unified School Dist. v. Superior Ct.

California Court of Appeal · Dec 17, 2019

Where liability has been established, the injured party shall also be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees as provided by law. … This holding, however, is inconsistent with the established legal principles on implied repeals.

Malear v. State of California

California Court of Appeal · Mar 13, 2023

In the unpublished portion of this opinion, we determine that defendants have not established an alternative basis for affirming the judgment at this early stage in the litigation. … Sanwa Bank California (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 561, 567–568), here, the cited portions of the exhibits were clearly delineated as (1) litigation statements made by defendants in a court filing, and (2) statements by prison officials

Security Pacific National Bank v. 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.

Irwin v. City of Hemet

22 Cal. App. 4th 507 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 10, 1994

The Individual Defendants Have Established That They Did Not Deprive the Plaintiffs of Their Rights. … This specific language clearly supports plaintiffs’ position.” ( 675 F.Supp. at p. 114 .)

Jewish Community Centers Development Corp. v. County of Los Angeles

243 Cal. App. 4th 700 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 5, 2016

We conclude that the SBE’s interpretation of section 214 was clearly erroneous. … In the County’s reply brief, it adverts to a regulation establishing that a property cannot be exempt unless it is irrevocably dedicated to one or more qualifying purposes, and also establishing that a county assessor may

Tiffin Motorhomes, Inc. v. Superior Court

202 Cal. App. 4th 24 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 23, 2011

Due to our conclusion, it is unnecessary to address the argument that the settlement did not, as a matter of fact and law, qualify as a “good faith settlement” within the meaning of the statute. … All that is required for an indemnity claim (and immunity after a good faith settlement) is that the defendants be liable for the same damages.

Rotary Club of Duarte v. Board of Directors of Rotary International

178 Cal. App. 3d 1035 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 17, 1986

Indeed, hospitals are often nonprofit organizations, and they are clearly business establishments to the extent that they employ a vast array of persons, care for an extensive physical plant and charge substantial fees to … Because we conclude that membership in an organization constituting a business establishment is clearly an “advantage” or “privilege” under the Unruh Act, exclusion from or termination of membership arbitrarily on the basis

Harland v. State of California

99 Cal. App. 3d 839 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 14, 1979

The reference to interest in section 970.4 clearly imposed no new obligation on the part of the public entities to pay interest on judgments. … The majority reasoned that because of the “sweeping character of the doctrine of sovereign immunity” in Kansas, a statute waiving immunity should be strictly construed. (Id., at p. 234.)

Morfin v. State of California

12 Cal. App. 4th 812 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 22, 1993

a design immunity defense. … the design immunity affirmative defense.

Elijah W. v. Superior Court

216 Cal. App. 4th 140 · California Court of Appeal · May 8, 2013

To implement Welfare and Institutions Code section 709, which was enacted in 2010, the Los Angeles Superior Court has adopted a protocol setting forth basic procedures to be followed and establishing a panel of qualified … A report by a mandated reporter is confidential, and a mandated reporter is immune from both criminal and civil liability for any report required or authorized by CANRA.

Henry v. Red Hill Evangelical Lutheran Church of Tustin

201 Cal. App. 4th 1041 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 9, 2011

Fremont Christian School (9th Cir. 1986) 781 F.2d 1362, 1366 [exemption does not provide immunity for sex discrimination]; Vigars v. … The definitions contained in section 12926 are to be used “in connection with unlawful practices, unless a different meaning clearly appears from the context.” (§ 12926.) This title (42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.)

Akers v. City of Palo Alto

194 Cal. App. 2d 109 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 24, 1961

The court gave the usual instruction to the effect that it is negligence not to see that which is clearly visible or not to hear that which is clearly audible. … That case abandoned a court made rule of immunity. It does not thereby amend or repeal a statute in which the Legislature has waived immunity, subject, however, to certain conditions. In Kotronakis v.