indisputable principle in California

2015"This sort of factual dispute is one that we do not resolve on [appellants'] section 425.16 special motion to strike." (Hawran v. Hixson, supra, 209 Cal.App.4th at p. 293 .) Appellants' other evidence, an IWMA form that purportedly shows "an indisputable violation of the small quantity hazardous waste generator requirements," 7 does not even call Tenborg's evidence into question.

2000(See id. at pp. 631, 632, 633, 634, 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 489 , 957 P.2d 1323 .) Creason , however, involved state statutes rather than local ordinances; in that light, the language cited may be understood simply as resting on the indisputable principle that the Legislature may, by later and more specific enactments, create exceptions to the general rule of liability set forth in section 815.6.

2000(See id. at pp. 631, 632, 633, 634, 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 489 , 957 P.2d 1323 .) Creason , however, involved state statutes rather than local ordinances; in that light, the language cited may be understood simply as resting on the indisputable principle that the Legislature may, by later and more specific enactments, create exceptions to the general rule of liability set forth in section 815.6.

1998(See id. at pp. 479-481.) Thus, regardless of the alleged factual strength of plaintiffs’ case, section 1038 allows defendants to recover costs when plaintiffs had no reasonable cause for filing or maintaining the action. (§ 1038; Knight, supra, 4 Cal.App.4th at p. 933 ; see also Kray Cabling, supra, 39 Cal.App.4th at p. 1593 [conjunction “and” indicates both elements are required].) In light of the County’s indisputable immunity, plaintiffs’ decision to pursue the action against it notwithstanding that immunity was unreasonable as a matter of law.

1960Section 1962, subdivision 5, of the Code of Civil Procedure provides: “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the issue of a wife cohabiting with her husband, who is not impotent, is indisputably presumed to be legitimate.” Moreover, by judicial construction, the scope of this statutory presumption has been broadened beyond the concept of cohabitation as such, so as to throw the protective cloak of legitimacy around a child where, by the laws of nature, it is possible for the husband to be the father of his wife’s child. (8 Cal.Jur.2d 256, 257.) In the case of Williams v. Moon, 98 Cal.App

1917Co., 160 Cal. 237 , [ 116 Pac. 513 ], Its contention, however, is that the facts in evidence from the lips of plaintiffs’ witnesses demonstrate beyond peradventure that the deceased did not exercise due care in placing himself in a position of danger from which he met his death.

1917Co., 160 Cal. 237 , [ 116 Pac. 513 ], Its contention, however, is that the facts in evidence from the lips of plaintiffs’ witnesses demonstrate beyond peradventure that the deceased did not exercise due care in placing himself in a position of danger from which he met his death.

1899In giving this instruction the court seems to have had in mind the case of People v. Cloman, 50 Cal. 449 , hut there the opinion merely lays down the indisputable rule that the evidence which, standing alone, is sufficient as tending to connect the defendant with the crime, need not be corroborative of the precise acts and facts related by the accomplice.