proviso exception in California

1967The residuary provision is controlling in the absence of a contrary specific disposition." ( 10 Cal.App.2d at p. 429 .) It would be pure speculation to presume that if the testatrix's attention was called to the inconsistency between the disposition contemplated under the contingency in paragraph "Sixth" and under the contingency in the proviso in clause " '(1)' " of part A of paragraph "Seventh," and the disposition under clause " '(5),' " as the facts resulted, that she would have revised her will to provide for her granddaughters.

1967The residuary provision is controlling in the absence of a contrary specific disposition.” ( 10 Cal.App.2d at p. 429 .) It would be pure speculation to presume that if the testatrix’s attention was called to the inconsistency between the disposition contemplated under the contingency in paragraph “Sixth” and under the contingency in the proviso in clause “ 1 (1) ’ ” of part A of paragraph “Seventh,” and the disposition under clause “ ‘ (5),’ ” as the facts resulted, that she would have revised her will to provide for her granddaughters.

2026Online (2026) <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unless> [as of March 18, 2026], archived at: <https://perma.cc/6NWR-2AJM>.) Accordingly, “a proviso or clause beginning with the word ‘unless’ means an exception or condition subsequent.” (Baggett v. Housing Authority (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 383, 389 .) Section 1172.75, subdivision (d)(4) provides both a requirement and an exception 13. to that requirement.

2022The Hollywood Redevelopment Plan In May 1986, the CRA-LA established the Hollywood Redevelopment Plan to pursue redevelopment in the Hollywood area that “will attain the purposes of the California Community Redevelopment Law.” (See Blue v. City of Los Angeles (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 1131, 1134 .) Among the goals of the plan are to “increase the supply and improve the quality of housing for all income and age groups, especially for persons with low and moderate incomes.” The Hollywood Redevelopment Plan includes a provision that mirrors the 15 percent requirement 3 and includes the proviso that

2022The Dissolution Law The system of tax increment financing for redevelopment agencies became “a source of contention because of the financial advantage it provide[d] redevelopment agencies and their community sponsors, primarily cities, over school districts and other local taxing agencies,” and its effect “on school districts’ property tax revenues . . . [became] a point of fiscal conflict between California’s community redevelopment agencies and the state itself.” (Matosantos, supra, 53 Cal.4th at p. 248 .) By 2011, the “diversion” of “property tax revenue to redevelopment agencies each year

2018The de minimis rule can *825 doubtless be applied to much of the walking time involved in this case, but the precise scope of that application can be determined only after the trier of facts makes more definite findings as to the amount of walking time in issue." ( Anderson , supra , 328 U.S. at p. 692 , 66 S.Ct. 1187 .) The court remanded for application of the de minimis doctrine to determine whether the employee time spent on preliminary activities was "insubstantial and insignificant" and "need not be included in the statutory workweek." ( Id. at p. 693, 66 S.Ct. 1187 .) In 1961, the de mi

2018The de minimis rule can *825 doubtless be applied to much of the walking time involved in this case, but the precise scope of that application can be determined only after the trier of facts makes more definite findings as to the amount of walking time in issue." ( Anderson , supra , 328 U.S. at p. 692 , 66 S.Ct. 1187 .) The court remanded for application of the de minimis doctrine to determine whether the employee time spent on preliminary activities was "insubstantial and insignificant" and "need not be included in the statutory workweek." ( Id. at p. 693, 66 S.Ct. 1187 .) In 1961, the de mi

2018The phrase constitutes a command only that the board not delegate to one member its final decision-making power." ( Ibid .) Opinions of the Attorney General, " 'while not binding, are entitled to great weight. [Citations.] In the absence of controlling authority, these opinions are persuasive "since the Legislature is presumed to be cognizant of that construction of the statute." ' " ( California Assn. of Psychology Providers v. Rank (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1 , 17, 270 Cal.Rptr. 796 , 793 P.2d 2 , quoting Napa Valley Educators' Assn. v. Napa Valley Unified School Dist . (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 243 , 25

2018The phrase constitutes a command only that the board not delegate to one member its final decision-making power." ( Ibid .) Opinions of the Attorney General, " 'while not binding, are entitled to great weight. [Citations.] In the absence of controlling authority, these opinions are persuasive "since the Legislature is presumed to be cognizant of that construction of the statute." ' " ( California Assn. of Psychology Providers v. Rank (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1 , 17, 270 Cal.Rptr. 796 , 793 P.2d 2 , quoting Napa Valley Educators' Assn. v. Napa Valley Unified School Dist . (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 243 , 25

2018The phrase constitutes a command only that the board not delegate to one member its final decision-making power." ( Ibid .) Opinions of the Attorney General, " 'while not binding, are entitled to great weight. [Citations.] In the absence of controlling authority, these opinions are persuasive "since the Legislature is presumed to be cognizant of that construction of the statute." ' " ( California Assn. of Psychology Providers v. Rank (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1 , 17, 270 Cal.Rptr. 796 , 793 P.2d 2 , quoting Napa Valley Educators' Assn. v. Napa Valley Unified School Dist . (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 243 , 25

2018The phrase constitutes a command only that the board not delegate to one member its final decision-making power." ( Ibid .) Opinions of the Attorney General, " 'while not binding, are entitled to great weight. [Citations.] In the absence of controlling authority, these opinions are persuasive "since the Legislature is presumed to be cognizant of that construction of the statute." ' " ( California Assn. of Psychology Providers v. Rank (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1 , 17, 270 Cal.Rptr. 796 , 793 P.2d 2 , quoting Napa Valley Educators' Assn. v. Napa Valley Unified School Dist . (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 243 , 25

1999(See Stats. 1927, ch. 866, § 1, pp. 1881-1882.) In Lewis v. Linn (1962) 209 Cal.App.2d 394 [ 26 Cal.Rptr. 6 ], in the context of a slander suit based on statements made by a judge on the bench, the Court of Appeal acknowledged that the application of the “logical-, relation” test to the privilege was not settled, although “[t]he holding of [Moore v. United States Fid. & Guar.

1999(See Stats. 1927, ch. 866, § 1, pp. 1881-1882.) In Lewis v. Linn (1962) 209 Cal.App.2d 394 [ 26 Cal.Rptr. 6 ], in the context of a slander suit based on statements made by a judge on the bench, the Court of Appeal acknowledged that the application of the “logical-, relation” test to the privilege was not settled, although “[t]he holding of [Moore v. United States Fid. & Guar.

1994(United Farm Workers of America v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd., supra, 37 Cal.3d 912, 916 ; Lee v. Brown (1976) 18 Cal.3d 110, 113 [ 553 P.2d 1121 ].) The motion to dismiss the appeal is denied.

1991Gerber & Co. (C.C.P.A. 1971) 436 F.2d 1390, 1394 .) In my view there is nothing in either article 1 or 2 of chapter 1.5 of title 8 which suggests that construing "service" as used in section 583.220 to *514 have the same meaning as stated in subdivision (f) of section 583.110 would conflict with any clear and express legislative declaration requiring a different construction.

1989The Attorney General’s reliance on People v. Thrash, supra, 80 Cal.App.3d 898 , is equally unavailing.

1949(Johnson v. Board of Supervisors, 208 Cal. 282, 285 [ 281 P. 57 ]; United States v. Dickson, 40 U.S. (15 Pet.) 141 [ 10 L.Ed. 689 ].) If the Legislature in enacting provisos to the general provisions of section 661 of the Code of Civil Procedure had intended to include therein the death of the trial judge, the intention would have been indicated as was done in other instances where death was expressly mentioned.

1949(Johnson v. Board of Supervisors, 208 Cal. 282, 285 [ 281 P. 57 ]; United States v. Dickson, 40 U.S. (15 Pet.) 141 [ 10 L.Ed. 689 ].) If the Legislature in enacting provisos to the general provisions of section 661 of the Code of Civil Procedure had intended to include therein the death of the trial judge, the intention would have been indicated as was done in other instances where death was expressly mentioned.

1938Jur. 720-725; 14 Cal. Jur. 52, 53; People v. H, Jevne Co., (1919) 179 Cal. 621, 625, 626 [ 178 Pac. 517 ]; Ex parte Hornef, (1908) 154 Cal. 355, 360 [ 97 Pac. 891 ]; People v. Kinsley, (1931) 118 Cal. App. 593, 598 [ 5 Pac. (2d) 938 ].) Of every complaint which does not negative such a proviso or exception, it is possible to say that all the facts alleged in it may be true and still the defendant may be entirely innocent of crime.

1925The word “engineer” appears in the section, as amended by the legislature providing for the appointment of county engineers instead of election of surveyors, but that amendment has been held inoperative in the case of Coulter v. Pool, 187 Cal. 181 [ 201 Pac. 120 ].

1925The word “engineer” appears in the section, as amended by the legislature providing for the appointment of county engineers instead of election of surveyors, but that amendment has been held inoperative in the case of Coulter v. Pool, 187 Cal. 181 [ 201 Pac. 120 ].

1923Corp., 190 Cal. 1 [ 210 P. 269 ], and the facts in the two cases are the same, except that the language of the proviso or exception attached to the policy and relied upon by the defendant herein is materially different.

1923Corp., 190 Cal. 1 [ 210 P. 269 ], and the facts in the two cases are the same, except that the language of the proviso or exception attached to the policy and relied upon by the defendant herein is materially different.

1910“The municipality may prescribe regulations for damages and indemnity for damages, but these regulations must be general—i. e., uniform—in their application to all who may desire to exercise the privilege.” (In re Johnston, 137 Cal. 115 , [ 69 Pac. 973 ].) It will be observed that the offense charged with *169 reference to the failure to give a bond is within the proviso clause of the ordinance.

1910“The municipality may prescribe regulations for damages and indemnity for damages, but these regulations must be general—i. e., uniform—in their application to all who may desire to exercise the privilege.” (In re Johnston, 137 Cal. 115 , [ 69 Pac. 973 ].) It will be observed that the offense charged with *169 reference to the failure to give a bond is within the proviso clause of the ordinance.

1908I.) 68 Atl. 364 , and is clearly a ease where it was not necessary to allege in the complaint facts showing that the accused did not come within the terms of the proviso or exception.