Cal. Codes » Civil Code / DIVISION 4. GENERAL PROVISIONS / PART 4. MAXIMS OF JURISPRUDENCE
California Codes

Cal. Civil Code § 3534 (2026)

Maxims Of Jurisprudence

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Particular expressions qualify those which are general.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 65 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1944–2025 · leading case: Harris v. TAP Worldwide, LLC, 248 Cal. App. 4th 373 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Harris v. TAP Worldwide, LLC, 248 Cal. App. 4th 373 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016). “Thus, the more specific provision must be enforced. (Code Civ.”
Cnty. of Riverside v. Superior Court, 42 P.3d 1034 (Cal. 2002). · cites it 2× “(Civ.Code, § 3534 ["Particular expressions qualify those which are general"].”
Nat'l Ins. Underwriters v. Carter, 551 P.2d 362 (Cal. 1976). · cites it 2× “) As we have seen, the pilot exclusion clause creates a specific exception to the coverage extended in the insuring clause: The policy is wholly inapplicable unless the aircraft is piloted by a person whose name and qualifications are specified in the policy.”
Howard v. Thrifty Drug & Disc. Stores, 895 P.2d 469 (Cal. 1995). · cites it 2× “17, which governs tolling of actions submitted to arbitration, is *445 a special statute which supplants the more general provisions of section 583.”
Brady v. Bayer Corp., 237 Cal. Rptr. 3d 683 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2018). “On its face Commercial Code section 10215 contemplates a situation where there are two or more warranties proffered, as distinct from a situation where there is one warranty on the front negated by a disclaimer on the back.”
People ex rel. Alzayat v. Hebb, 226 Cal. Rptr. 3d 867 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2017). “Defendants cross-appeal, arguing that, even if Alzayat's lawsuit is not barred by the litigation privilege, the superior court erred by not granting judgment on the pleadings on the ground that Alzayat's claim is barred by the workers' compensation exclusivity rule.”
Hughes Elec. Corp. v. Citibank Delaware, 53 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 950 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004). “(Civ. Code, § 3534.) “In the construction of a statute the intention of the Legislature .”
Prouty v. Gores Tech. Grp., 21 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1208 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004). “5 and 8(b) state generally no rights or remedies exist under the contract to third persons; section 6 expressly grants rights to specific third persons regarding their employment with GTG.”
People v. P.A., 211 Cal. App. 4th 23 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012). “Instead, a minor taken into temporary custody “may be requested to submit to voluntary chemical testing of his or her urine .”
Bartholomew v. Youtube, LLC., 225 Cal. Rptr. 3d 917 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2017). “See Cal. Civ. Code § 3534 ." As she argues, "[c]ommon practice and legal doctrine both hold that when an illustrative list of violations is provided, all other violations must be similar in kind to the examples listed.”
Hall v. Live Nation Worldwide, Inc., 146 F. Supp. 3d 1187 (C.D. Cal. 2015). “That provision states: “[N]o provision of this article can in any way be contravened or set aside by a private agreement, whether written, oral, or implied.”
Ovitz v. Schulman, 35 Cal. Rptr. 3d 117 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005). “3d 178 ]; see § 1859; Civ. Code, § 3534.) Finally, as the APG parties further observe, the arbitration agreement referred to possible review under “other applicable law.”
Show all 65 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.