generalized claim in California

2015(Vu v. California Commerce Club, Inc. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 229, 235 ; 5 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law, supra, Torts, § 703, pp. 1026-1027.) 27 In Fischer v. Machado (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1069 , liability for conversion was held proper, where two agents had failed to turn over a definite sum to their principals, after it was received for the principals' account.

2013Any amounts the club may have taken . . . also were not identified.” ( Vu, supra, 58 Cal.App.4th 229, 235 .) The facts of that case are not analogous to the facts of the present case.

2014(Eisenberg et al., Civil Appeals and 53 Writs, supra, ¶ 9:21, pp. 9-6 to 9-7 [“appellate court can treat as waived, forfeited or meritless any issue that, although raised in the briefs, is not supported by pertinent or cognizable legal argument or proper citation of authority”]; e.g., In re Marriage of Falcone and Fyke (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 964, 1004 ].) Only in appellants’ reply brief do they describe a single alternative suggested by Goodman as to which the FEIR is alleged to have inadequately responded—Goodman’s “Tower Demolition” alternative.20 Raising the issue in this manner is not suff

2014(Eisenberg et al., Civil Appeals and 53 Writs, supra, ¶ 9:21, pp. 9-6 to 9-7 [“appellate court can treat as waived, forfeited or meritless any issue that, although raised in the briefs, is not supported by pertinent or cognizable legal argument or proper citation of authority”]; e.g., In re Marriage of Falcone and Fyke (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 964, 1004 ].) Only in appellants’ reply brief do they describe a single alternative suggested by Goodman as to which the FEIR is alleged to have inadequately responded—Goodman’s “Tower Demolition” alternative.20 Raising the issue in this manner is not suff

2026(Lucero, at pp. 407-408.) The same is true of forgery, which is established by showing: (1) “a writing or other subject of forgery,” (2) “the false making of the writing,” and (3) the “intent to defraud.” (People v. Gaul-Alexander (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 735, 741 .) Clearly, not all instances of false presentation of evidence also result in a forgery given that the former only requires “a fraudulent or deceitful purpose” while that latter requires a specific “intent to defraud.” (Compare § 134 with § 470.) Accordingly, we conclude that because section 134 is not one of the specifically enumerate

2023That two-part test, rejected by the Supreme Court, was as follows: First, the government would attempt to justify a regulation by establishing it regulated activity falling outside the scope of the Second Amendment right based on its historical meaning, and, if the government failed to do so, then second, the court would engage in what the Supreme Court called a means-end scrutiny test. ( Bruen, supra, ___U.S. at pp.___ [213 L.Ed.2d at pp. 405-406].) This means-end scrutiny test refers to familiar tests employing standards including strict scrutiny and intermediate scrutiny.

2020The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Voris, which held that nonpayment of wages does not give rise to a claim for conversion (7 Cal.5th at pp. 1144– 1145), is instructive. 831, fn. 18.) Further, notwithstanding its prior ruling overruling the demurrer, the trial court had the inherent power to dismiss the challenged causes of action when the motion in limine showed that, “ ‘ “even if the plaintiff's allegations were proved, they would not establish a cause of action.” ’ ” (Coshow, supra, 132 Cal.App.4th at p. 701 .) 18 In discussing the applicability of the conversion tort to a claim for mon

2019(See Colorado v. Bertine (1987) 479 U.S. 367 , 374-376, 107 S.Ct. 738 , 93 L.Ed.2d 739 ( Bertine ); South Dakota v. Opperman (1976) 428 U.S. 364 , 367-376, 96 S.Ct. 3092 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 ( Opperman ); see also Cooper v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 58 , 60-62, 87 S.Ct. 788 , 17 L.Ed.2d 730 .) Cady and its progeny did not create a generalized exception to the warrant requirement for nonemergency community caretaking functions, much less apply such an exception to the search of homes.

2019(See Colorado v. Bertine (1987) 479 U.S. 367 , 374-376, 107 S.Ct. 738 , 93 L.Ed.2d 739 ( Bertine ); South Dakota v. Opperman (1976) 428 U.S. 364 , 367-376, 96 S.Ct. 3092 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 ( Opperman ); see also Cooper v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 58 , 60-62, 87 S.Ct. 788 , 17 L.Ed.2d 730 .) Cady and its progeny did not create a generalized exception to the warrant requirement for nonemergency community caretaking functions, much less apply such an exception to the search of homes.

2019(See Colorado v. Bertine (1987) 479 U.S. 367 , 374-376, 107 S.Ct. 738 , 93 L.Ed.2d 739 ( Bertine ); South Dakota v. Opperman (1976) 428 U.S. 364 , 367-376, 96 S.Ct. 3092 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 ( Opperman ); see also Cooper v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 58 , 60-62, 87 S.Ct. 788 , 17 L.Ed.2d 730 .) Cady and its progeny did not create a generalized exception to the warrant requirement for nonemergency community caretaking functions, much less apply such an exception to the search of homes.

2019(See Colorado v. Bertine (1987) 479 U.S. 367 , 374-376, 107 S.Ct. 738 , 93 L.Ed.2d 739 ( Bertine ); South Dakota v. Opperman (1976) 428 U.S. 364 , 367-376, 96 S.Ct. 3092 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 ( Opperman ); see also Cooper v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 58 , 60-62, 87 S.Ct. 788 , 17 L.Ed.2d 730 .) Cady and its progeny did not create a generalized exception to the warrant requirement for nonemergency community caretaking functions, much less apply such an exception to the search of homes.

2016That rendered the generalized claim for money not actionable as conversion.’ (Id. at p. 235.)” ( PCO, supra, 150 Cal.App.4th at pp. 396-397.) Here, Flannery’s cause of action for conversion alleged, without specificity, that Murray embezzled “funds from the horse boarding business and its bank account and selling and transacting with the Chatsworth Ranch’s assets and fixtures” and that he was 15 “harmed in an amount according to proof.” The claim for conversion of money was not well pled because it failed to identify a discrete sum that allegedly was converted.

2015(In re Andrew L., supra, 122 Cal.App.4th at p. 190 .) Although petitioner made a generalized claim that parent-child relationships are very important, he presented absolutely no evidence—much less new evidence—that it would be in the best interests of C.S. to visit 6 with him and for him to receive reunification services.

2015(Vu v. California Commerce Club, Inc. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 229, 235 ; 5 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law, supra, Torts, § 703, pp. 1026-1027.) 27 In Fischer v. Machado (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1069 , liability for conversion was held proper, where two agents had failed to turn over a definite sum to their principals, after it was received for the principals' account.

2013In the latter case, section 395.5 applies. 4 Indeed, the holding in General Acceptance was that “the agreement between the parties to the contract upon which this action was brought was void.” (General Acceptance, supra, 207 Cal. at p. 289 , italics added.) There is no broader pronouncement of a generalized rule in General Acceptance. 5 The Alexander opinion dealt with two underlying cases, filed by the same plaintiff, against different defendants, pertaining to the same contract.

2013(Alexander, supra, 114 Cal.App.4th at p. 725 .) 6 In Alexander , it appears that the parties selected a proper county for venue, under the legislative scheme.

2007That rendered the generalized claim for money not actionable as conversion.” (Id. at p. 235.) In this case, plaintiffs may have stated a cause of action for conversion by alleging, in effect, an amount of cash “capable of identification.” (Haigler v. Donnelly, supra, 18 Cal.2d at p. 681 .) Plaintiffs alleged a conversion of 10 duffel bags, each containing $500,000.

1988In Brochtrup v. INTEP, supra, 190 Cal.App.3d 323 , the court faced a situation much like that presented here.

1987The broader tests adopted by the Oregon and Arizona Supreme Courts and suggested by the minority in Oregon v. Kennedy, supra, 456 U.S. 667 , encompass a more generalized test that has variously been characterized as “bad faith conduct” or “harassment” or “overreaching.” Besides being so *738 broad as to be essentially standardless, the tests display a basic naivete of courtroom dynamics and trial strategy in an adversarial system.

1977For example, in People v. Grant (1969) 1 Cal.App.3d 563 [ 81 Cal.Rptr. 812 ], People v. Aguilar (1966) 240 Cal.App.2d 502 [ 49 Cal.Rptr. 584 ], and People v. Govea (1965) 235 Cal.App.2d 285 [ 45 Cal.Rptr. 253 ], the affidavits allege prior narcotics sales at night, thus implying that the contraband might not be there the next morning.

1977For example, in People v. Grant (1969) 1 Cal.App.3d 563 [ 81 Cal.Rptr. 812 ], People v. Aguilar (1966) 240 Cal.App.2d 502 [ 49 Cal.Rptr. 584 ], and People v. Govea (1965) 235 Cal.App.2d 285 [ 45 Cal.Rptr. 253 ], the affidavits allege prior narcotics sales at night, thus implying that the contraband might not be there the next morning.

1977For example, in People v. Grant (1969) 1 Cal.App.3d 563 [ 81 Cal.Rptr. 812 ], People v. Aguilar (1966) 240 Cal.App.2d 502 [ 49 Cal.Rptr. 584 ], and People v. Govea (1965) 235 Cal.App.2d 285 [ 45 Cal.Rptr. 253 ], the affidavits allege prior narcotics sales at night, thus implying that the contraband might not be there the next morning.

1977For example, in People v. Grant (1969) 1 Cal.App.3d 563 [ 81 Cal.Rptr. 812 ], People v. Aguilar (1966) 240 Cal.App.2d 502 [ 49 Cal.Rptr. 584 ], and People v. Govea (1965) 235 Cal.App.2d 285 [ 45 Cal.Rptr. 253 ], the affidavits allege prior narcotics sales at night, thus implying that the contraband might not be there the next morning.

1977For example, in People v. Grant (1969) 1 Cal.App.3d 563 [ 81 Cal.Rptr. 812 ], People v. Aguilar (1966) 240 Cal.App.2d 502 [ 49 Cal.Rptr. 584 ], and People v. Govea (1965) 235 Cal.App.2d 285 [ 45 Cal.Rptr. 253 ], the affidavits allege prior narcotics sales at night, thus implying that the contraband might not be there the next morning.

1977For example, in People v. Grant (1969) 1 Cal.App.3d 563 [ 81 Cal.Rptr. 812 ], People v. Aguilar (1966) 240 Cal.App.2d 502 [ 49 Cal.Rptr. 584 ], and People v. Govea (1965) 235 Cal.App.2d 285 [ 45 Cal.Rptr. 253 ], the affidavits allege prior narcotics sales at night, thus implying that the contraband might not be there the next morning.