Case law

People v. Towery

174 Cal. App. 3d 1114 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 25, 1985

This clearly differs from the objective test employed in California and discussed herein. … There are few cases where the government has so clearly exceeded the bounds of permissible law enforcement conduct.

People v. Harris

45 Cal. App. 547 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 26, 1920

Arceo, 32 Cal. 40 , it is said: “Thus, it appears, in many instances, parties not positively disqualified under the law, yet, in fact, not qualified or fitted to discharge the duties of jurors in the given case, and in some … While appellant claims the evidence is insufficient to justify the verdict, his counsel directs our attention to facts and circumstances, clearly established by the testimony of witnesses for the state, from which it would

Alfaro v. Super. Ct.

California Court of Appeal · Dec 30, 2020

As to the merge/purge information and jury survey, the parties disputed whether Defendant had established the requisite particularized showing. … (Bellas, supra, 85 Cal.App.4th at p. 650 [“[A] truncated history of section 237 clearly reveals that: 1) the harm the Legislature perceived from disclosure of personal juror identifying information was postverdict harassment

Ne. Sacramento Cty. Sanitation Dist. v. Northridge Park Cty. Water Dist. of Sacramento Cty.

247 Cal. App. 2d 317 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 16, 1966

The benefit to the public as a whole thus clearly outweighs the burden imposed upon defendant, and the legislation is therefore valid. ” East Bay Municipal Utility Dist. v. … Code, § 900 et seq.) the distinction has been abandoned in the field of government immunity from torts.

People v. Russell

196 Cal. App. 2d 58 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 3, 1961

Deputy Copping had been with the sheriff’s narcotic detail since February 1958; he was established by experience, training and study as qualified to testify concerning narcotic use and addiction. … Deputy Burley had been four and a half years with the narcotics division and was similarly qualified.

People v. Henderson

80 Cal. App. 3d 584 · California Court of Appeal · May 2, 1978

In his moving papers below, defendant claimed that additional studies made since the Witherspoon decision “show clearly that identifiable segments of the community are excluded by the death qualification of the jury. . . … Until such a hearing establishes that a death-qualified jury is guilt-prone, the Supreme Court mandates that *594 we assume that it is not.

Carter v. Dept. of Veterans Affairs

134 Cal. Rptr. 2d 768 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 13, 2003

We are thus not called upon to decide the remaining issues: immunity, sufficiency of the evidence, defenses, apportionment, or attorney fees. I. … Loss of tangible job benefits shall not be necessary in order to establish harassment."

Brownell v. Los Angeles Unified School District

4 Cal. App. 4th 787 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 16, 1992

However, as noted in Pema , Education Code section 44808 qualifies this principle somewhat and provides, in pertinent part, that no school district “shall be responsible or in any way liable for the conduct or safety of any … The facts in the present case fail to establish LAUSD’s awareness of the need for a visual precaution or that such a precaution would have aided in deterring the injury suffered here.

Consulting Engineers & Land Surveyors of California v. Department of Transportation

167 Cal. App. 4th 1457 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 30, 2008

Section 20209.32 states: “(a) A deviation from the performance criteria and standards established under subdivision (a) of Section 20209.26 may not be authorized except by written consent of the authority and [Caltrans]. … PECG argues that the challenged statutes may not be declared unconstitutional unless they clearly conflict with Proposition 35; if a statute is susceptible of two reasonable constructions, one of which is constitutional and

King v. Superior Court

132 Cal. Rptr. 2d 585 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 8, 2003

Under the deferential standard of habeas corpus review, the circuit court found the state court did not act in a manner contrary to, or in an unreasonable application of, clearly established law as determined by the Supreme … To establish standing to bring a suppression motion, the defendant testified he owned a suitcase.

Roy Brothers Drilling Co. v. Jones

123 Cal. App. 3d 175 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 28, 1981

Jones clearly shows his competence to testify with respect to the negotiation of the contract with plaintiff which he “personally handled” and to establish the foundation for documents comprising: (1) a bill for services … The uncontroverted facts clearly establish that the drilling of the holes necessary to install caissons for the support of the foundation for defendants’ home was in no way incidental and supplemental to, or performed in

Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board

1 Cal. Rptr. 3d 339 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 30, 2003

It forbade underage buy operations at any establishment that had not been notified in the previous six months of the possibility such operations would be conducted. … Accordingly, courts generally will not depart from such construction unless it is clearly erroneous or unauthorized.” (Maples v.

County of San Joaquin v. State Water Res. Control Bd.

54 Cal. App. 4th 1144 · California Court of Appeal · May 6, 1997

In this dispute, established water users challenge restrictions imposed under new federal standards for water quality and wildlife *1147 protection. … The Bureau clearly has a substantial interest in this litigation. Appellants also essentially seek to create a new, determinative, factor.

Lockwood v. Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton

173 Cal. App. 4th 675 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 30, 2009

It also argued that, in any event, Lockwood could not prevail on his interference and fraud claims because section 47(b) provided absolute immunity (as the trial court previously ruled), *681 and he could not prevail on his … Lockwood alleges that Sheppard Mullin knowingly made false representations in its requests for reexamination regarding whether a certain publication qualified as prior art, and misrepresented what was shown in other prior

Fleet v. Bank of America

California Court of Appeal · Sep 23, 2014

INTRODUCTION This appeal represents another example of what is becoming a well established and predictable pattern. … Since the complaint was only six months old at that point, this dismissal was clearly erroneous. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 583.420.)

Armin v. Riverside Community Hospital

5 Cal. App. 5th 810 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 16, 2016

The Federal Preemption Argument As did the hospital in Fahlen, the hospital here claims immunity from section 1278.5 proceedings by virtue of a federal statute immunizing hospitals from damage claims arising … The high court was making the point that whether HCQIA immunity applies involves factual matters.

Cleare v. Super. Ct.

California Court of Appeal · Apr 17, 2026

At trial, the issue quickly became reframed as whether the District had established that compliance with the relevant statutes made it impossible to put enough qualified teachers in classrooms, thus excusing the District’ … Central to its function is the belief that knowledge should be imparted by qualified instructors.

Hart v. Landis

103 Cal. App. 2d 284 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 6, 1951

However they rely on long established practice dating back to the establishment of the municipal railway. … Such boards are vested with a high discretion and its abuse must appear very clearly before the courts will interfere.” This quotation echoes through the reports again and again. *287 (Nelson v.

American Mutual Liability Insurance Co. v. Superior Court

38 Cal. App. 3d 579 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 12, 1974

Lysick clearly indicates the duality of the position occupied by an attorney for an insured and an insurer. … Such a definition clearly encompasses both insured and insurer in the matter before us.

Memorial Hospitals Assn. v. Randol

38 Cal. App. 4th 1300 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 28, 1995

a “clearly articulated or affirmatively expressed state policy.” … The Board is not authorized by statute to establish an EOA; only the local agency can do so. The EMS Act unequivocally establishes that only the local agency can establish an EOA.