12 Cited authorities

  1. Elsner v. Uveges

    34 Cal.4th 915 (Cal. 2004)   Cited 207 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Applying McKown to a claim involving unsafe scaffolding
  2. Tiernan v. Trustees of Cal. St. University Colleges

    33 Cal.3d 211 (Cal. 1982)   Cited 253 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a temporary employee's failure to exhaust her administrative remedies barred her judicial claim that the university had violated her First Amendment rights when it failed to reappoint her as an archivist
  3. Seelig v. Infinity Broadcasting Corporation

    97 Cal.App.4th 798 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 118 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[t]he phrase big skank is not actionable because it is too vague to be capable of being proven true or false" and "the term skank constitutes rhetorical hyperbole which no listener could reasonably have interpreted to be a statement of actual fact"
  4. Big Creek Lumber v. County of Santa Cruz

    38 Cal.4th 1139 (Cal. 2006)   Cited 97 times
    Finding that general legislative statements of intent to establish comprehensive regulation do not preempt field where statute also expressly authorizes local action
  5. People v. Harper

    82 Cal.App.4th 1413 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 54 times
    In Harper, the defendant was convicted of assault with a semiautomatic firearm (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (b)) and related crimes.
  6. Martin v. Szeto

    32 Cal.4th 445 (Cal. 2004)   Cited 37 times

    No. S103417 February 19, 2004 Appeal from the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, No. 999134, A. James Robertson II, Judge. Law Offices of Mattaniah Eytan, Mattaniah Eytan, Eric Schenk and Andrea R. Widburg for Defendants and Appellants. Craig K. Martin, in pro. per.; and Melissa L. Foster for Plaintiff and Respondent. WERDEGAR, J. We granted review to resolve a conflict in the lower courts over the proper interpretation of Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.7. The section permits

  7. Bldg. Material Constr. Teamsters' Union v. Farrell

    41 Cal.3d 651 (Cal. 1986)   Cited 64 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Building Material, supra, 41 Cal.3d 651, the City and County of San Francisco unilaterally eliminated two bargaining unit positions and reorganized and reclassified duties of hospital truck drivers who were members of the Building Material and Construction Teamsters' Union, Local 216 (Union).
  8. People v. Allen

    88 Cal.App.4th 986 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 30 times
    In Allen, we noted that the penalty assessment in Government Code section 76000 was "analogous" to the Penal Code section 1464 assessment. (Allen, supra, 88 Cal.App.4th at p. 991, fn. 6.) As in Penal Code section 1464, the penalty assessment in Government Code section 76000 is not freestanding but dependent upon an underlying "fine, penalty, or forfeiture" being imposed by the trial court.
  9. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Department of Water Resources

    112 Cal.App.4th 477 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 19 times
    Considering Senate Republican Floor Commentaries
  10. Hale v. S. Cal. IPA Med. Grp., Inc.

    86 Cal.App.4th 919 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 9 times

    B137947 Filed January 30, 2001 Certified for Publication Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. BC209700, David L. Minning, Judge. Reversed with directions. Gary D. Stabile for Plaintiff and Appellant. Sulmeyer, Kupetz, Baumann Rothman and Elissa D. Miller for Defendant and Respondent Southern California IPA Medical Group, Inc. Solomon, Saltsman Jamieson and Stephen Allen Jamieson for Defendants and Respondents Ronald Accomazzo, Jerome Kornfeld, Rene Osman, Donald

  11. Section 450

    Cal. Evid. Code § 450   Cited 97 times

    Judicial notice may not be taken of any matter unless authorized or required by law. Ca. Evid. Code § 450

  12. Rule 8.252 - Judicial notice; findings and evidence on appeal

    Cal. R. 8.252   Cited 320 times

    (a)Judicial notice (1) To obtain judicial notice by a reviewing court under Evidence Code section 459, a party must serve and file a separate motion with a proposed order. (2) The motion must state: (A) Why the matter to be noticed is relevant to the appeal; (B) Whether the matter to be noticed was presented to the trial court and, if so, whether judicial notice was taken by that court; (C) If judicial notice of the matter was not taken by the trial court, why the matter is subject to judicial notice