Case law

People v. Stone

89 Cal. Rptr. 2d 401 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 6, 1999

(a)(7)); court findings that he had suffered two prior convictions which qualified as strikes under the “Three Strikes” law (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. … The record, instead, reflects appellant was clearly engaged in the process of manufacturing piperidine as an intermediate step in his manufacture of PCP.

Smith v. Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors

128 Cal. Rptr. 2d 700 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 26, 2002

We apply the established principles of preemption analysis. … The court was asked to determine whether the defendants had discretionary immunity under the Tort Claims Act, Government Code section 820.2.

County of Madera v. Superior Court

39 Cal. App. 3d 665 · California Court of Appeal · May 31, 1974

This obvious omission clearly suggests application of the familiar maxim of statutory construction that the expression of one thing in a statute implies the exclusion of the omitted thing. … This report was- written with reference to former article VI, section 11 of the California Constitution, which clearly specified that there should be one judge in each municipal and justice court, with such additional judges

In re Henderson

110 Cal. App. 2d 515 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 24, 1952

It is alleged that the police officer who investigated this matter made a deal with Wheeler giving him immunity from conviction on this charge in return for his testimony to the effect that the petitioner participated in … No attempt was made by the petitioner to establish that fact, no contention was made that evidence to that effect could be produced, and the only evidence that was produced is to the contrary.

McCullah v. Southern California Gas Co.

98 Cal. Rptr. 2d 208 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 20, 2000

Two employees filed a class action, alleging that a driver safety program which established physical standards for city employees was discriminatory. … ‘If the ability of each member of the class to recover clearly depends on a separate set of facts applicable only to him [or her], then all of the policy considerations which justify class *502 actions equally compel the

Lowery v. Kindren Healthcare Operating, Inc.

California Court of Appeal · May 18, 2020

Miller’s declaration clearly states what underlying facts he relied [on] and why the underlying facts led to his conclusion” that if Ms. … Evidence Code section 720, subdivision (a) provides: “A person is qualified to testify as an expert if he has special knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education sufficient to qualify him as an expert on the subject

Cooper v. Selig

48 Cal. App. 228 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 18, 1920

It is to be observed, though, that the qualifying words are in the granting part of the deed and so clearly connected with the word grant as naturally to suggest that what was intended was simply to convey the right to the … Barnett, 104 Cal. 298 , [ 37 Pac. 1049 ], the habendum clause clearly limited the interest conveyed to a life estate.

Kane v. Wedell

54 Cal. App. 516 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 13, 1921

Clearly, the original construction of the reservoirs, aqueducts, mains, and other works and appliances requisite to the creation of a municipal water system would be such a public improvement as to come within the terms of … The word ‘special’ qualifies the improvement, not the district. The improvement in this instance affected the whole city.

People v. Durfee

79 Cal. App. 2d 632 · California Court of Appeal · May 12, 1947

He appealed on the ground that the evidence does not support the verdict in that the corpus delicti was not established. … What he said was freely and voluntarily stated, without immunity or hope of reward, nor was it induced by force or threats of force. Pursuant to his request Mrs. Durfee entered the room.

Medical Bd. of California v. Superior Court

4 Cal. Rptr. 3d 403 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 14, 2003

Instead, section 2354 was intended to clarify the procedural interplay between participation in a diversion program and immunity from discipline for the conduct that led to diversion. … Failure to complete the program will waive the immunity and allow the Board to renew its accusation and seek discipline for the conduct that resulted in diversion.

People v. Schwarz

78 Cal. App. 561 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 30, 1926

The weight of authority clearly supports the preposition that one who is brought into court under a subí oena and testifies pursuant thereto acts under compulsion In People v. Courtney, 94 N. … The witness Parks, who qualified as an expert, being a broker from Minneapolis, and familiar with the stock in that market, testified that during the period in which Schwartz bought and sold this stock the minimum *578 market

People v. Cain

15 Cal. App. 3d 687 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 1, 1971

Scotland’s official position would qualify him as a reliable informant. In People v. … to be true) we are of the opinion that personal knowledge on the part of Scotland is clearly inferable from the positive averments and the precise dates together with the statement that the operator was working under the

Poway Royal Mobilehome Owners Ass'n v. City of Poway

58 Cal. Rptr. 3d 153 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 20, 2007

The stipulated facts clearly establish that from an early date the state and city have been aware of the serious and complex title problems in the Alamitos Bay area. … The term “qualified bond” means any private activity bond that meets certain criteria, such as being “a qualified 501(c)(3) bond.” ( 26 U.S.C. § 141 (e)(1)(G).)

People v. Houck

77 Cal. Rptr. 2d 837 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 15, 1998

aware that it possessed the discretion to strike prior felony conviction allegations without the concurrence of the prosecuting attorney and did not strike the allegations, or if the record shows that the sentencing court clearly … In determining if a prior conviction constitutes a qualifying strike for purposes of the Three Strikes law, the trial court may look to “the entire *355 record of conviction ‘but no further.’ ” (People v.

League of Women Voters v. Countywide Criminal Justice Coordination Committee

203 Cal. App. 3d 529 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 3, 1988

Clearly, prior to and through the drafting stage of a proposed initiative, the action is not taken to attempt to influence voters either to qualify or to pass an initiative measure; there is as yet nothing to proceed to either … Chrystie drafted for the district attorney is unequivocally one-sided in tone and clearly is aimed at influencing the electorate in favor of qualifying the proposed initiative.

DiLoreto v. Board of Education

87 Cal. Rptr. 2d 791 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 17, 1999

On June 1, 1998, the trial court granted respondents’ motion for summary judgment as to the individual respondents on the basis that they are immune from liability under Government Code section 820.2. … The posting of the Ten Commandments on the baseball field in sight not only of students, players, school supporters, and faculty, but also of passersby on the nearby freeway, would clearly advance a religious, rather than

People v. Valli

187 Cal. App. 4th 786 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 5, 2010

At the evading trial, Apel and Aguila again testified under grants of immunity. In addition, Bahmiller and Chitica testified under grants of immunity. The officers involved in the two pursuits also testified. … The People were clearly aware of the November 20 evading charge at the time of the prosecution of the murder.

People v. Avent CA3

California Court of Appeal · Dec 30, 2025

It is well established that a defendant’s statements in a parole risk assessment report and testimony at a parole hearing fall within the ambit of “new or additional evidence.” (People v. … And the Legislature “could have directed that qualifying offenders receive a new trial by a new jury on the critical factual questions” yet did not do so. (People v. Clements (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 276, 297.)

Canfield v. Security First National Bank

8 Cal. App. 2d 277 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 3, 1935

Crooks, 139 Cal. 640 [ 73 Pac. 585 ]); and by this section *283 the strict rule granting absolute immunity to a beneficiary from the demands of his creditors was greatly modified and relaxed. … Clearly in the nature of things there is no reason why a gift or bequest of personal property, with a power of disposition, should not be measured by the same rule as a grant or devise of real estate with the same power.

Gonzales v. State of California

68 Cal. App. 3d 621 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 30, 1977

The grounds of the demurrer set forth were (1) that plaintiffs have not properly complied with the claims filing provisions of the California Government Code; (2) that the state is immune; (3) that a finding that a prior … Their failure to clearly set forth how or in what manner the convictions were declared constitutionally invalid rendered the complaint vulnerable to demurrer for uncertainty.