legislature adopted rule in California

2008(Brown, at p. 833.) The Pritchard court “reasoned] that ‘the fact that the city itself deliberately created the dangerous condition dispensed with the necessity of the notice contemplated by [the applicable statute].’ ” (Brown, supra, at p. 833 , quoting Pritchard, supra, at p. 254 .) As we explained in Brown, supra, 4 Cal.4th at pages 834—835, the Legislature adopted the rule of Pritchard, supra, 178 Cal.App.2d 246 , in section 835 when it predicated public entity liability on either notice or negligently creating a dangerous condition of property.

1998Spencer, P. J., and Vogel (Miriam A.), J., concurred. 1 Undesignated section references, post, are to the Family Code. 2 Reference was made to one other child of Johnson’s. 3 Tate did not seek review of the partial grant of the protective order. 4 The uniform guidelines were enacted to comply with a provision of the federal Aid to Families with Dependent Children Act ( 42 U.S.C. § 667 ) that requires each state to have a single statewide guideline for child support. (§ 4050.) 5 The court found that “. . . it appears the Legislature adopted the rule [of White v. Marciano] when it provided that

1989Appeals Bd. (Wiebe) (1978) 22 Cal.3d 103 [ 148 Cal.Rptr. 626 , 583 P.2d 151 ].) As noted in Wiebe, supra, 22 Cal. 3d at pages 108-109, the Legislature adopted the presumption in response to “ ‘the persisting cleavage in medical theory itself [citation] as to the relationship between stress, physical exertion and progressive heart disease. [Fn. omitted.]” The court noted the Legislature was faced with a situation in which the fate of a worker’s claim generally did not turn on the facts of the particular employment or heart attack, but rather was decided almost fortuitously on the basis of which

1989Appeals Bd. (Wiebe) (1978) 22 Cal.3d 103 [ 148 Cal.Rptr. 626 , 583 P.2d 151 ].) As noted in Wiebe, supra, 22 Cal. 3d at pages 108-109, the Legislature adopted the presumption in response to “ ‘the persisting cleavage in medical theory itself [citation] as to the relationship between stress, physical exertion and progressive heart disease. [Fn. omitted.]” The court noted the Legislature was faced with a situation in which the fate of a worker’s claim generally did not turn on the facts of the particular employment or heart attack, but rather was decided almost fortuitously on the basis of which

1952Although this contention is supported by Quevedo v. Superior Court, 131 Cal.App. 698 [ 21 P.2d 998 ], the court in that case did not consider the analogous rule applicable to partial appeals, and we have concluded that its interpretation of the amendment to the statute was erroneous.

1952Although this contention is supported by Quevedo v. Superior Court, 131 Cal.App. 698 [ 21 P.2d 998 ], the court in that case did not consider the analogous rule applicable to partial appeals, and we have concluded that its interpretation of the amendment to the statute was erroneous.