legality claim in California

2026But even assuming that Grossman’s contention can properly be characterized as one that challenges the legality of the instruction as delivered, we explain why we disagree. 43 supra, at p. 152.) The Phillips test or formulation (originating in People v. Phillips (1966) 64 Cal.2d 574, 587 (Phillips)) states that “[m]alice is implied when the killing is proximately caused by ‘ “an act, the natural consequences of which are dangerous to life, which act was deliberately performed by a person who knows that his conduct endangers the life of another and who acts with conscious disregard for life.” ’

2019The choice of law decision may determine the success or failure of a lawsuit, the amount of damages recoverable, or the legality of a defense raised." (Smith, supra , 38 Hastings L.J. at p. 1042.) In California, "general choice-of-law rules have been formulated by courts through judicial decisions rendered under *598 the common law, rather than by the legislature through statutory enactments." ( McCann v. Foster Wheeler LLC (2010) 48 Cal.4th 68 , 83, 105 Cal.Rptr.3d 378 , 225 P.3d 516 ( McCann ) [collecting cases].) As the forum state, California will apply its own law "unless a party litigant

2019The choice of law decision may determine the success or failure of a lawsuit, the amount of damages recoverable, or the legality of a defense raised." (Smith, supra , 38 Hastings L.J. at p. 1042.) In California, "general choice-of-law rules have been formulated by courts through judicial decisions rendered under *598 the common law, rather than by the legislature through statutory enactments." ( McCann v. Foster Wheeler LLC (2010) 48 Cal.4th 68 , 83, 105 Cal.Rptr.3d 378 , 225 P.3d 516 ( McCann ) [collecting cases].) As the forum state, California will apply its own law "unless a party litigant

1988He cannot disregard the claim, and if he does, and redelivers to the bailor, the bailee is responsible to the adverse claimant if his claim proves a just one.” (Dobie, Handbook on the Law of Bailments and Carriers (1914) § 19, p. 42, fn. omitted; Brown, op. cit. supra, § 11.7, p.285; see also Powell v. Robinson & Ledyard (1884) 76 Ala. 423, 425 .) “[A] bailee of property is bound to return it to his bailor, under pain of an action of conversion at the hands of the latter if he delivers the property to any other person, unless he believes after the exercise of reasonable care and vigilance that

1988He cannot disregard the claim, and if he does, and redelivers to the bailor, the bailee is responsible to the adverse claimant if his claim proves a just one.” (Dobie, Handbook on the Law of Bailments and Carriers (1914) § 19, p. 42, fn. omitted; Brown, op. cit. supra, § 11.7, p.285; see also Powell v. Robinson & Ledyard (1884) 76 Ala. 423, 425 .) “[A] bailee of property is bound to return it to his bailor, under pain of an action of conversion at the hands of the latter if he delivers the property to any other person, unless he believes after the exercise of reasonable care and vigilance that

1988He cannot disregard the claim, and if he does, and redelivers to the bailor, the bailee is responsible to the adverse claimant if his claim proves a just one.” (Dobie, Handbook on the Law of Bailments and Carriers (1914) § 19, p. 42, fn. omitted; Brown, op. cit. supra, § 11.7, p.285; see also Powell v. Robinson & Ledyard (1884) 76 Ala. 423, 425 .) “[A] bailee of property is bound to return it to his bailor, under pain of an action of conversion at the hands of the latter if he delivers the property to any other person, unless he believes after the exercise of reasonable care and vigilance that

1988He cannot disregard the claim, and if he does, and redelivers to the bailor, the bailee is responsible to the adverse claimant if his claim proves a just one.” (Dobie, Handbook on the Law of Bailments and Carriers (1914) § 19, p. 42, fn. omitted; Brown, op. cit. supra, § 11.7, p.285; see also Powell v. Robinson & Ledyard (1884) 76 Ala. 423, 425 .) “[A] bailee of property is bound to return it to his bailor, under pain of an action of conversion at the hands of the latter if he delivers the property to any other person, unless he believes after the exercise of reasonable care and vigilance that

1988He cannot disregard the claim, and if he does, and redelivers to the bailor, the bailee is responsible to the adverse claimant if his claim proves a just one.” (Dobie, Handbook on the Law of Bailments and Carriers (1914) § 19, p. 42, fn. omitted; Brown, op. cit. supra, § 11.7, p.285; see also Powell v. Robinson & Ledyard (1884) 76 Ala. 423, 425 .) “[A] bailee of property is bound to return it to his bailor, under pain of an action of conversion at the hands of the latter if he delivers the property to any other person, unless he believes after the exercise of reasonable care and vigilance that

1953(Ex parte Widber, 91 Cal. 367, 370 [ 27 P. 733 ]; Ex parte Truman, 124 Cal. 387 [ 57 P. 223 ].)" [9a] The evidence before us is that petitioner, in the performance of his official duties, endeavored in good faith and with reasonable promptness to obtain a determination of the legality of the claim presented to him; that no determination thereof was made until the hearing on the order to show cause, at which time petitioner promptly drew his warrant as ordered by the court.

1953(Ex parte Widber, 91 Cal. 367, 370 [ 27 P. 733 ]; Ex parte Truman, 124 Cal. 387 [ 57 P. 223 ].)" [9a] The evidence before us is that petitioner, in the performance of his official duties, endeavored in good faith and with reasonable promptness to obtain a determination of the legality of the claim presented to him; that no determination thereof was made until the hearing on the order to show cause, at which time petitioner promptly drew his warrant as ordered by the court.

1924(See Biggart v. Lewis, 183 Cal. 660, 672 [ 192 Pac. 437 ]; Hammel v. Neylan, 31 Cal. App. 21, 25 [ 159 Pac. 618 ]; Dufton v. Daniels, 190 Cal. 577, 581 [ 213 Pac. 9491 ]; Clinton Construction Co. of California v. Clay, 34 Cal. App. 625, 628 [ 168 Pac. 588 ].) The rule which we draw from the authorities is that when a claim against a public corporation is approved by the duly constituted approving body the courts may examine into the legality of the claim to see whether it is one which such body had authority to approve; but when the action of the approving body depends upon its determination o

1924(See Biggart v. Lewis, 183 Cal. 660, 672 [ 192 Pac. 437 ]; Hammel v. Neylan, 31 Cal. App. 21, 25 [ 159 Pac. 618 ]; Dufton v. Daniels, 190 Cal. 577, 581 [ 213 Pac. 9491 ]; Clinton Construction Co. of California v. Clay, 34 Cal. App. 625, 628 [ 168 Pac. 588 ].) The rule which we draw from the authorities is that when a claim against a public corporation is approved by the duly constituted approving body the courts may examine into the legality of the claim to see whether it is one which such body had authority to approve; but when the action of the approving body depends upon its determination o

1924(See Biggart v. Lewis, 183 Cal. 660, 672 [ 192 Pac. 437 ]; Hammel v. Neylan, 31 Cal. App. 21, 25 [ 159 Pac. 618 ]; Dufton v. Daniels, 190 Cal. 577, 581 [ 213 Pac. 9491 ]; Clinton Construction Co. of California v. Clay, 34 Cal. App. 625, 628 [ 168 Pac. 588 ].) The rule which we draw from the authorities is that when a claim against a public corporation is approved by the duly constituted approving body the courts may examine into the legality of the claim to see whether it is one which such body had authority to approve; but when the action of the approving body depends upon its determination o

1924(See Biggart v. Lewis, 183 Cal. 660, 672 [ 192 Pac. 437 ]; Hammel v. Neylan, 31 Cal. App. 21, 25 [ 159 Pac. 618 ]; Dufton v. Daniels, 190 Cal. 577, 581 [ 213 Pac. 9491 ]; Clinton Construction Co. of California v. Clay, 34 Cal. App. 625, 628 [ 168 Pac. 588 ].) The rule which we draw from the authorities is that when a claim against a public corporation is approved by the duly constituted approving body the courts may examine into the legality of the claim to see whether it is one which such body had authority to approve; but when the action of the approving body depends upon its determination o

1924(See Biggart v. Lewis, 183 Cal. 660, 672 [ 192 Pac. 437 ]; Hammel v. Neylan, 31 Cal. App. 21, 25 [ 159 Pac. 618 ]; Dufton v. Daniels, 190 Cal. 577, 581 [ 213 Pac. 9491 ]; Clinton Construction Co. of California v. Clay, 34 Cal. App. 625, 628 [ 168 Pac. 588 ].) The rule which we draw from the authorities is that when a claim against a public corporation is approved by the duly constituted approving body the courts may examine into the legality of the claim to see whether it is one which such body had authority to approve; but when the action of the approving body depends upon its determination o

1924(See Biggart v. Lewis, 183 Cal. 660, 672 [ 192 Pac. 437 ]; Hammel v. Neylan, 31 Cal. App. 21, 25 [ 159 Pac. 618 ]; Dufton v. Daniels, 190 Cal. 577, 581 [ 213 Pac. 9491 ]; Clinton Construction Co. of California v. Clay, 34 Cal. App. 625, 628 [ 168 Pac. 588 ].) The rule which we draw from the authorities is that when a claim against a public corporation is approved by the duly constituted approving body the courts may examine into the legality of the claim to see whether it is one which such body had authority to approve; but when the action of the approving body depends upon its determination o