acknowledged rule in California

2019The court noted that the forum selection clause was not a geographical clause, but was more aptly characterized as "a 'sovereign selection clause.' " ( Id. at p. 564.) Similar to appellant here, the passengers argued that the "new forum-selection clause *221 effectively dictates not only the location where a passenger may sue, but also contractually constrains *681 the 'subject matter jurisdiction' of the available courts within that jurisdiction." ( Ibid. ) The court acknowledged that the clause "disrupt[ed] the participation of this state's 'trial and appellate courts as an otherwise indispe

2019The court noted that the forum selection clause was not a geographical clause, but was more aptly characterized as "a 'sovereign selection clause.' " ( Id. at p. 564.) Similar to appellant here, the passengers argued that the "new forum-selection clause *221 effectively dictates not only the location where a passenger may sue, but also contractually constrains *681 the 'subject matter jurisdiction' of the available courts within that jurisdiction." ( Ibid. ) The court acknowledged that the clause "disrupt[ed] the participation of this state's 'trial and appellate courts as an otherwise indispe

2018Although the trial court's conclusion was based on Nightingale, supra, 31 Cal.App.4th 99 , 37 Cal.Rptr.2d 149 , and Andre, supra, 92 Cal.App.4th 532 , 111 Cal.Rptr.2d 891 , those cases do not require the result reached by the trial court.

2018Although the trial court's conclusion was based on Nightingale, supra, 31 Cal.App.4th 99 , 37 Cal.Rptr.2d 149 , and Andre, supra, 92 Cal.App.4th 532 , 111 Cal.Rptr.2d 891 , those cases do not require the result reached by the trial court.

2018Although the trial court's conclusion was based on Nightingale, supra, 31 Cal.App.4th 99 , 37 Cal.Rptr.2d 149 , and Andre, supra, 92 Cal.App.4th 532 , 111 Cal.Rptr.2d 891 , those cases do not require the result reached by the trial court.

2018Although the trial court's conclusion was based on Nightingale, supra, 31 Cal.App.4th 99 , 37 Cal.Rptr.2d 149 , and Andre, supra, 92 Cal.App.4th 532 , 111 Cal.Rptr.2d 891 , those cases do not require the result reached by the trial court.

2018In Verdugo , the Supreme Court attempted to discern legislative intent from the scope of the legislation, in this case the statutes governing automated external defibrillators (AED's) for use in a medical emergency. ( Verdugo, supra , 59 Cal.4th at pp. 325-334, 173 Cal.Rptr.3d 662 , 327 P.3d 774 .) The court acknowledged the presumption that a statute does not impliedly supplant the common law. ( Id. at p. 317, 173 Cal.Rptr.3d 662 , 327 P.3d 774 .) The question was whether the statutes were sufficiently comprehensive to evince a legislative intent to occupy the field.

2018In Verdugo , the Supreme Court attempted to discern legislative intent from the scope of the legislation, in this case the statutes governing automated external defibrillators (AED's) for use in a medical emergency. ( Verdugo, supra , 59 Cal.4th at pp. 325-334, 173 Cal.Rptr.3d 662 , 327 P.3d 774 .) The court acknowledged the presumption that a statute does not impliedly supplant the common law. ( Id. at p. 317, 173 Cal.Rptr.3d 662 , 327 P.3d 774 .) The question was whether the statutes were sufficiently comprehensive to evince a legislative intent to occupy the field.

1991(See, e.g., Gray v. Zurich Insurance Co. (1966) 65 Cal.2d 263, 269 [ 54 Cal. Rptr. 104 , 419 P.2d 168 ].) The court acknowledged this rule, but apparently found it was outweighed by "the general rule that existing and valid statutory provisions enter into and form a part of all policies of insurance to which they are pertinent and applicable as fully as if such provisions were written into said policies[.]" ( 614 S.W.2d at p. 282 .) Since the court cited no Missouri authority in which this "general rule" had been invoked to construe an ambiguous policy term against an insured, it may be doubte

1991(See, e.g., Gray v. Zurich Insurance Co. (1966) 65 Cal.2d 263, 269 [ 54 Cal.Rptr. 104 , 419 P.2d 168 ].) The court acknowledged this rule, but apparently found it was outweighed by “the general rule that existing and valid statutory provisions enter into and form a part of all policies of insurance to which they are pertinent and applicable as fully as if such provisions were written into said policies[.]” ( 614 S.W.2d at p. 282 .) Since the court cited no Missouri authority in which this “general rule” had been invoked to construe an ambiguous policy term against an insured, it may be doubted

2026Indeed, as the court acknowledged at the hearing, “[its] goal was to promote the children’s best interests, which at this point were permanency and stability . . . .” (Mickel O., supra, 197 Cal.App.4th at p. 617 ; see § 388 subd. (a).) The court did just that.

2025The court then quoted the following passage from In re A.F. (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 283 (A.F.): 21 “‘Jurisdictional findings in a dependency case are prima facie evidence that the children cannot safely remain in the home.’” Relying again on A.F., the court reiterated that it had to find by clear and convincing evidence that there was a substantial danger to the physical health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of Nav., Nia., Nolan, and Nori if they were returned to their parents’ custody.

2024(Shiver, supra, 24 Cal.App.5th at p. 397 .) The trial court acknowledged the doctrine rarely applies on summary judgment (id. at p. 397), but granted the motion, noting: “A freeway driver with the right of way is not required to anticipate an act of road rage that unexpectedly causes merging traffic in front of him to come to almost a dead stop.” (Id. at p. 397.) “‘“The general rule is that every person has a right to presume that every other person will perform his duty and obey the law, and in the absence of reasonable ground to think otherwise it is not negligence to assume that he is not e

2023(People v. Martinez (2010) 47 Cal.4th 911, 957 .) Indeed, that presumption is a crucial underpinning of our constitutional system of trial by jury.

2022(People v. Superior Court (Du) (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 822, 831 .) As our Supreme Court observed in People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367 , “a trial court does not abuse its discretion unless its decision is so irrational or arbitrary that no reasonable person could agree with it.” (Id. at p. 377.) “ ‘[I]t is not enough to show that reasonable people might disagree about whether to strike one or more’ prior conviction allegations.” (Id. at p. 378.) In ruling on the Romero motion, the trial court acknowledged the factors it needed to consider under People v. Williams, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 161

2022(People v. Superior Court (Du) (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 822, 831 .) As our Supreme Court observed in People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367 , “a trial court does not abuse its discretion unless its decision is so irrational or arbitrary that no reasonable person could agree with it.” (Id. at p. 377.) “ ‘[I]t is not enough to show that reasonable people might disagree about whether to strike one or more’ prior conviction allegations.” (Id. at p. 378.) In ruling on the Romero motion, the trial court acknowledged the factors it needed to consider under People v. Williams, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 161

2022(People v. Superior Court (Du) (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 822, 831 .) As our Supreme Court observed in People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367 , “a trial court does not abuse its discretion unless its decision is so irrational or arbitrary that no reasonable person could agree with it.” (Id. at p. 377.) “ ‘[I]t is not enough to show that reasonable people might disagree about whether to strike one or more’ prior conviction allegations.” (Id. at p. 378.) In ruling on the Romero motion, the trial court acknowledged the factors it needed to consider under People v. Williams, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 161

2021Indeed, even [the defendant] acknowledges that, on its face, 3 the instruction is ‘superficially neutral.’” (Ibid.) 3 Despite finding no due process violation, the court acknowledged the instruction’s potential to mislead jurors about the relationship between certainty and accuracy and therefore used its supervisory powers to direct “trial courts to omit the certainty factor from CALCRIM No. 315 until the Judicial Council has the opportunity to consider how the language might be better worded to minimize juror confusion on this point.” (Lemcke, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 669 .) 8 The court also n

2021Specifically, the trial court had instructed the jury that “‘[p]eople sometimes honestly . . . make mistakes about what they remember,’” and that they were responsible for “‘judg[ing] the credibility or believability of the witnesses.’” (Lemcke, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 658 .) Additionally, CALCRIM No. 315 itself emphasizes that “[t]he People have the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that it was the defendant who committed the crime” and if they “have not met this burden, you must find the defendant not guilty.” (Lemcke, at p. 658.) Based on all of these considerations, the court con

2019Instead, as the United States Supreme Court explained in Shute , there are "several reasons" for finding such a clause enforceable. ( Shute , supra , 499 U.S. at p. 593 , 111 S.Ct. 1522 .) These include the advantages of dispelling confusion about where suits must be brought and the possibility that "passengers who purchase tickets containing a forum clause ... benefit in the form of reduced fares reflecting the savings that the cruise line enjoys by limiting the fora in which it may be sued. [Citation.]" ( Id. at p. 594, 111 S.Ct. 1522 .) The designation of a federal forum was a matter of con

2019Instead, as the United States Supreme Court explained in Shute , there are "several reasons" for finding such a clause enforceable. ( Shute , supra , 499 U.S. at p. 593 , 111 S.Ct. 1522 .) These include the advantages of dispelling confusion about where suits must be brought and the possibility that "passengers who purchase tickets containing a forum clause ... benefit in the form of reduced fares reflecting the savings that the cruise line enjoys by limiting the fora in which it may be sued. [Citation.]" ( Id. at p. 594, 111 S.Ct. 1522 .) The designation of a federal forum was a matter of con

2019Instead, as the United States Supreme Court explained in Shute , there are "several reasons" for finding such a clause enforceable. ( Shute , supra , 499 U.S. at p. 593 , 111 S.Ct. 1522 .) These include the advantages of dispelling confusion about where suits must be brought and the possibility that "passengers who purchase tickets containing a forum clause ... benefit in the form of reduced fares reflecting the savings that the cruise line enjoys by limiting the fora in which it may be sued. [Citation.]" ( Id. at p. 594, 111 S.Ct. 1522 .) The designation of a federal forum was a matter of con

2019The court acknowledged the rule from Responsible Citizens that "mere representation of a partnership does not per se constitute representation of the individual partners" and reviewed the factors enumerated in that case to determine whether the attorney had formed an attorney-client relationship with the limited partners. ( Id. at pp. 476-478, 45 Cal.Rptr.2d 312 .) The limited partners alleged that in the course of representing the partnership, *735 the attorney performed services that benefitted the general partner to the detriment of the partnership, which violated the attorney's duty of car

2019The court acknowledged the rule from Responsible Citizens that "mere representation of a partnership does not per se constitute representation of the individual partners" and reviewed the factors enumerated in that case to determine whether the attorney had formed an attorney-client relationship with the limited partners. ( Id. at pp. 476-478, 45 Cal.Rptr.2d 312 .) The limited partners alleged that in the course of representing the partnership, *735 the attorney performed services that benefitted the general partner to the detriment of the partnership, which violated the attorney's duty of car

2017(Action Apartment, supra, 41 Cal.4th at pp. 1239-1240.) Although our Supreme Court stated the litigation privilege is broad, the court acknowledged the privilege “is not without limit[s]” and cited claims for malicious prosecution, certain criminal prosecutions and regulatory enforcement proceedings, as examples of actions that are exempt from the litigation privilege.

2016(Nickolas F., supra, 144 Cal.App.4th at p. 110 .) As discussed, we reject the Department’s contention that the error made in Kern County was harmless, and conclude that because the notice provisions of section 241.1 and rule 5.512 were not followed, the Imperial County juvenile court was authorized to revisit the section 241.1 assessment to allow the participation of Ray’s dependency counsel.