party aggrieved violation in California

2024As a general rule, “[t]he violation of a statute gives to any person within the statute’s protection a right of action to recover damages caused by its violation.” (Palo Alto-Menlo Park Yellow Cab Co. v. Santa Clara County Transit District (1976) 65 Cal.App.3d 121, 131 (Yellow Cab).) Where the right is created by statute, “the party aggrieved by its violation is confined to the statutory remedy if one is provided.” (Id., citing County of Monterey v. Abbott (1888) 77 Cal. 541, 543 .) But where a statute does not specify a particular remedy, “any appropriate common[-]law remedy may be resorted t

2024As a general rule, “[t]he violation of a statute gives to any person within the statute’s protection a right of action to recover damages caused by its violation.” (Palo Alto-Menlo Park Yellow Cab Co. v. Santa Clara County Transit District (1976) 65 Cal.App.3d 121, 131 (Yellow Cab).) Where the right is created by statute, “the party aggrieved by its violation is confined to the statutory remedy if one is provided.” (Id., citing County of Monterey v. Abbott (1888) 77 Cal. 541, 543 .) But where a statute does not specify a particular remedy, “any appropriate common[-]law remedy may be resorted t

2020The remedy of the party aggrieved by the error lies only in a petition [for rehearing] to a reviewing court.” (Puritan Leasing Co. v. Superior Court (1977) 76 6 Cal.App.3d 140, 147 ; see also Skaggs v. Los Angeles (1956) 138 Cal.App.2d 269 , 272–273.) Applying the principles expressed above, the trial court did not err when it affirmed Manila’s prior sentence because this court’s directions in the disposition of Manila I did not expressly call for a new sentencing hearing.

1977(Skaggs v. City of Los Angeles (1956) 138 Cal.App.2d 269, 272-273 [ 291 P.2d 572 , 292 P.2d 572 ].) Case at Bench The power of the trial court here thus depends upon the nature of the Supreme Court’s order which remands the cause “for proceedings consistent with the views expressed herein.” If that order is treated as a general reversal, the trial court has jurisdiction to consider all issues raised limited only by the applicable law of the case as enunciated by the Supreme Court to the extent that an exception to the application of that principle does not exist.

2017(See § 5326.9.) When legislation provides a comprehensive regulatory scheme for its enforcement, courts generally conclude the Legislature intended that remedy to be exclusive, unless the statutory language or legislative history “ ‘ “clearly indicates an intent to create a private right of action.” ’ ” (Noe, supra, 237 Cal.App.4th at p. 337 ; see Thurman, supra, 203 Cal.App.4th at p. 1132 ; see also County of San Diego v. State of California (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 580 , *382 610-611 [ 79 Cal.Rptr.3d 489 ] [“[generally, when a new right is created by statute, a party aggrieved by violation of

2017(See § 5326.9.) When legislation provides a comprehensive regulatory scheme for its enforcement, courts generally conclude the Legislature intended that remedy to be exclusive, unless the statutory language or legislative history “ ‘ “clearly indicates an intent to create a private right of action.” ’ ” (Noe, supra, 237 Cal.App.4th at p. 337 ; see Thurman, supra, 203 Cal.App.4th at p. 1132 ; see also County of San Diego v. State of California (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 580 , *382 610-611 [ 79 Cal.Rptr.3d 489 ] [“[generally, when a new right is created by statute, a party aggrieved by violation of

2017(See § 5326.9.) When legislation provides a comprehensive regulatory scheme for its enforcement, courts generally conclude the Legislature intended that remedy to be exclusive, unless the statutory language or legislative history “ ‘ “clearly indicates an intent to create a private right of action.” ’ ” (Noe, supra, 237 Cal.App.4th at p. 337 ; see Thurman, supra, 203 Cal.App.4th at p. 1132 ; see also County of San Diego v. State of California (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 580 , *382 610-611 [ 79 Cal.Rptr.3d 489 ] [“[generally, when a new right is created by statute, a party aggrieved by violation of

2017(See § 5326.9.) When legislation provides a comprehensive regulatory scheme for its enforcement, courts generally conclude the Legislature intended that remedy to be exclusive, unless the statutory language or legislative history “clearly indicates an intent to create a private right of action.” (Noe, supra, 237 Cal.App.4th at p. 337 ; see Thurman, supra, 203 Cal.App.4th at p. 1132 ; see also County of San Diego v. State (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 580, 610-611 [“[g]enerally, when a new right is created by statute, a party aggrieved by violation of the statute is limited to the statutory 24 remedy

2024As a general rule, “[t]he violation of a statute gives to any person within the statute’s protection a right of action to recover damages caused by its violation.” (Palo Alto-Menlo Park Yellow Cab Co. v. Santa Clara County Transit District (1976) 65 Cal.App.3d 121, 131 (Yellow Cab).) Where the right is created by statute, “the party aggrieved by its violation is confined to the statutory remedy if one is provided.” (Id., citing County of Monterey v. Abbott (1888) 77 Cal. 541, 543 .) But where a statute does not specify a particular remedy, “any appropriate common[-]law remedy may be resorted t

1983“Where a new right is created by statute, the party aggrieved by its violation is confined to the statutory remedy if one is provided. ...” (Palo Alto-Menlo *519 Park Yellow Cab Co. v. Santa Clara County Transit Dist. (1976) 65 Cal.App.3d 121, 131 [ 135 Cal.Rptr. 192 ]; County of Monterey v. Abbott (1888) 77 Cal. 541 [ 18 P. 113 , 20 P. 73 ]; see 2 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (2d ed. 1970) p. 885.) Our courts have allowed exceptions to this rule only when the statutory remedy has been found inadequate.

2024“We think it plain that the Legislature, in lieu of attempting to specify particular remedies for particular violations, determined that the task was best left to the courts on a case-by-case basis.” (Williams v. City of Los Angeles (1988) 47 Cal.3d 195, 203 (Williams).) In such circumstances, a trial court’s decision will be reversed only if there has been a prejudicial abuse of discretion.

2024As a general rule, “[t]he violation of a statute gives to any person within the statute’s protection a right of action to recover damages caused by its violation.” (Palo Alto-Menlo Park Yellow Cab Co. v. Santa Clara County Transit District (1976) 65 Cal.App.3d 121, 131 (Yellow Cab).) Where the right is created by statute, “the party aggrieved by its violation is confined to the statutory remedy if one is provided.” (Id., citing County of Monterey v. Abbott (1888) 77 Cal. 541, 543 .) But where a statute does not specify a particular remedy, “any appropriate common[-]law remedy may be resorted t

2009(See Henning, supra, 46 Cal.3d at p. 1273.) Thus, an employee did not have a common law right to his or her gratuity. "`"`Where a new right is created by statute, the party aggrieved by its violation is confined to the statutory remedy....'"'" ( Stevenson v. Superior Court (1997) 16 Cal.4th 880, 900 [ 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 888 , 941 P.2d 1157 ].) Since Labor Code section 351 created a right and did not simply provide a new remedy for a preexisting right, Grodensky and the class cannot base their tort claim for conversion on a violation of Labor Code section 351.

2009(See Henning, supra, 46 Cal.3d at p. 1273.) Thus, an employee did not have a common law right to his or her gratuity. "`"`Where a new right is created by statute, the party aggrieved by its violation is confined to the statutory remedy....'"'" ( Stevenson v. Superior Court (1997) 16 Cal.4th 880, 900 [ 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 888 , 941 P.2d 1157 ].) Since Labor Code section 351 created a right and did not simply provide a new remedy for a preexisting right, Grodensky and the class cannot base their tort claim for conversion on a violation of Labor Code section 351.

2009(See Henning, supra, 46 Cal.3d at p. 1273.) Thus, an employee did not have a common law right to his or her gratuity. "`"`Where a new right is created by statute, the party aggrieved by its violation is confined to the statutory remedy....'"'" ( Stevenson v. Superior Court (1997) 16 Cal.4th 880, 900 [ 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 888 , 941 P.2d 1157 ].) Since Labor Code section 351 created a right and did not simply provide a new remedy for a preexisting right, Grodensky and the class cannot base their tort claim for conversion on a violation of Labor Code section 351.

1996Code, § 3523.) In accordance with that principle, “[t]he violation of a statute gives to any person within the statute’s protection a right of action to recover damages caused by its violation.” (Palo Alto-Menlo Park Yellow Cab Co. v. Santa Clara County Transit Dist. (1976) 65 Cal.App.3d 121, 131 [ 135 Cal.Rptr. 192 ]; accord, County of Los Angeles v. City of Alhambra (1980) 27 Cal.3d 184, 195 [ 165 Cal.Rptr. 440 , 612 P.2d 24 ].) “Where a new right is created by statute, the party aggrieved by its violation is confined to the statutory remedy if one is provided [citation]; otherwise any appro

1996Code, § 3523.) In accordance with that principle, “[t]he violation of a statute gives to any person within the statute’s protection a right of action to recover damages caused by its violation.” (Palo Alto-Menlo Park Yellow Cab Co. v. Santa Clara County Transit Dist. (1976) 65 Cal.App.3d 121, 131 [ 135 Cal.Rptr. 192 ]; accord, County of Los Angeles v. City of Alhambra (1980) 27 Cal.3d 184, 195 [ 165 Cal.Rptr. 440 , 612 P.2d 24 ].) “Where a new right is created by statute, the party aggrieved by its violation is confined to the statutory remedy if one is provided [citation]; otherwise any appro

1986Co. (1979) 24 Cal.3d 458, 490 [ 156 Cal.Rptr. 14 , 595 P.2d 592 ].) Section 1420 et seq. created a statutory remedy for the infringement of that right. ‘Where a new right is created by statute, the party aggrieved by its violation is confined to the statutory remedy if one is provided [Citations.]” (Strauss v. A. L.

1986Co. (1979) 24 Cal.3d 458, 490 [ 156 Cal.Rptr. 14 , 595 P.2d 592 ].) Section 1420 et seq. created a statutory remedy for the infringement of that right. ‘Where a new right is created by statute, the party aggrieved by its violation is confined to the statutory remedy if one is provided [Citations.]” (Strauss v. A. L.

1983(See, e.g., Orloff v. Los Angeles Turf Club (1947) 30 Cal.2d 110, 113 [ 180 P.2d 321 , 171 A.L.R. 913 ].) We conclude that Strauss’ right to file a private civil action is demarcated by statute.

1983(See, e.g., Orloff v. Los Angeles Turf Club (1947) 30 Cal.2d 110, 113 [ 180 P.2d 321 , 171 A.L.R. 913 ].) We conclude that Strauss’ right to file a private civil action is demarcated by statute.

1976(River Garden Farms, Inc. v. Superior Court (1972) 26 Cal.App.3d 986, 1001 [ 103 Cal.Rptr. 498 ].) Where a new right is created by statute, the party aggrieved by its violation is confined to the statutory remedy if one is provided (County of Monterey v. Abbott (1888) 77 Cal. 541, 543 [ 18 P. 113 , 20 P. 73 ]); otherwise any appropriate common law remedy may be resorted to.

1976(River Garden Farms, Inc. v. Superior Court (1972) 26 Cal.App.3d 986, 1001 [ 103 Cal.Rptr. 498 ].) Where a new right is created by statute, the party aggrieved by its violation is confined to the statutory remedy if one is provided (County of Monterey v. Abbott (1888) 77 Cal. 541, 543 [ 18 P. 113 , 20 P. 73 ]); otherwise any appropriate common law remedy may be resorted to.