CONN v. WESTERN PLACER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Part-II
<script src="http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js" type="text/javascript"> </script> <script type="text/javascript"> _uacct = "UA-1698443-1"; urchinTracker(); </script> <html ><br /> <head><br /> <title>CONN v</title><br /> </head><br /> <body><br /> <div><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/><b<br /> >CONN</b><b<br /> > v. WESTERN<br /> PLACER UNIFIED </b><b >SCHOOL DISTRICT</b><b<br /> ></b><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>Filed 7/20/10<br /> <br/><u> </u><br /> <br/><u> </u><br /> <br/><u> </u><br /> <br/><u> </u><br /> <br/><u> </u><br /> <br/><u> </u><br /> <br/><u>CERTIFIED<br /> FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION</u><sup>*</sup><sup></sup><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>IN THE COURT OF<br /> APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA<br /> <br/>THIRD APPELLATE<br /> DISTRICT<br /> <br/>(Placer)<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <table class=MsoNormalTable border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 width=624<br /> ><br /> <tr ><br /> <td width=394 valign=top ><br /> <br/>CHRISTINA CONN,<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> Plaintiff and Appellant,<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> v.<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>WESTERN PLACER UNIFIED SCHOOL<br /> DISTRICT et al.,<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> Defendants and Respondents.<br /> <br/> <br /> </td><br /> <td width=230 valign=top ><br /> <br/>C059754<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>(Super.<br /> Ct. Nos. SCV18938 &<br /> SCV20084)<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> </table><br /> <br/><b >STORY CONTINUE <br /> FROM PART I….</b><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>II<br /> <br/>Defendants<br /> Bliss, Noyes, and Yohe<br /> <br/>are<br /> not Exempt From Liability<br /> <br/> On appeal from a<br /> judgment on a directed verdict, we view the evidence in the light most<br /> favorable to the appellant. All<br /> conflicts must be resolved and inferences drawn in the appellant's favor. If there is substantial evidence to support<br /> the appellant's claim, and if the state of the law also supports that claim, we<br /> must reverse the judgment. (<i >Margolin</i><i<br /> > v. Shemaria</i><br /> (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 891, 895.)<br /> <br/> Conn contends the trial â€