Case law

People v. Vargas

California Court of Appeal · Jan 19, 2016

qualifies her for resentencing. … For instance, private areas of commercial establishments may not qualify as an “establishment . . . open during regular business hours” as required by section 459.5. (Cf. People v.

In Re Marriage of Shelstead

78 Cal. Rptr. 2d 365 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 15, 1998

To establish an order is a QDRO, the parties must show it is a “domestic relations order” and that it is a “qualified” order. (See § 1056(d)(3)(A).) It is undisputed the February 1 order is a domestic relations order. … The order must “clearly specif [y]” the name and address of the participant and of the alternate payee and the amount and manner of the payments to be paid to the alternate payee. (§ 1056(d)(3)(C).)

Hay v. Scripps Memoirial Hospital-La Jolla

183 Cal. App. 3d 753 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 22, 1986

One must, in consideration of the good of the patient, refer patients and problems to the best qualified physician. … The court also made reference to Congress’ clearly expressed concern for the continued need to protect and encourage primary medical care.

People v. Andrews

234 Cal. App. 2d 69 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 29, 1965

As the opinion in that case shows there was proof that the fires were of incendiary origin and such proof established the corpus delicti. … Such interrogation seems clearly outside the scope of Dorado .

Perepletchikoff v. City of Los Angeles

174 Cal. App. 2d 697 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 23, 1959

Saxl, 328 U.S. 80, 83 [ 66 S.Ct. 850 , 90 L.Ed. 1096 ], the court said: “ [I]n no case does the owner of property acquire immunity against exercise of the police power because he constructed it in full compliance with the … The generality of this language is qualified by the following, also found on page 615 [148 N.W.] : “When the law gives city officials the power to remove a building erected within the fire limits in violation of the statute

Daniel v. Board of Police Commissioners

190 Cal. App. 2d 566 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 28, 1961

It does not appear that the Legislature intended that a person who is licensed to sell liquor should be immune from supervision, by local government, of any other activity the licensee might pursue in conjunction with the … It applies to any such establishment regardless of whether it is in the liquor business.

Gordon v. Ervin Cohen & Jessup, LLP

California Court of Appeal · Mar 20, 2023

More specifically, Trust B would be a “bypass trust” containing stocks and other securities, while Trust C would be a qualified terminable interest property trust (or QTIP trust) designed to qualify for the unlimited federal … A “‘“key element”’” of plaintiffs’ sole cause of action for malpractice is “‘“the establishment of a duty by the [lawyer] to the claimant.”’” (Moore v.

Mansell v. Board of Administration of the Public Employees' Retirement System

30 Cal. App. 4th 539 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 28, 1994

While that rule is an aid to construction, it cannot vest a statute with a meaning it clearly lacks. … Further, it is established that “. . . an appellate brief ‘should contain a legal argument with citation of authorities on the points made.

People v. Foreman

23 Cal. Rptr. 3d 714 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 31, 2005

Defendant points out that Health and Safety Code section 11368 is not specifically excluded as a qualifying offense. Neither is burglary. … Such a result is clearly neither contemplated nor authorized. We agree with the conclusion reached in In re Ogea (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 974 [ 17 Cal.Rptr.3d 698 ].

Windsor Food Quality v. Underwriters of Lloyds etc.

California Court of Appeal · Mar 3, 2015

Lloyds was entitled to summary judgment if it established a complete defense to Windsor’s causes of action, or showed that one or more elements of each cause of action cannot be established. (Code Civ. … In my mind, the policy does not clearly and explicitly state what the majority says it does.

Cook v. Reid

39 Cal. App. 453 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 23, 1919

By amendment of 1905 (Stats. 1905, p. 528), the duty of the auditor with respect to such demands was, for the first time, qualified by the clause, “in case he allows said demand.” … establishes the petitioner’s right to such action.

San Diego County Department of Social Services v. McKeown

25 Cal. App. 4th 502 · California Court of Appeal · May 31, 1994

This hearing was a reestablishment proceeding as opposed to an establishment proceeding. … CALJIC No. 2.80 states in pertinent part: “A duly qualified expert may give an opinion on questions in controversy at a trial.

People v. Patton

63 Cal. App. 3d 211 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 1, 1976

“Clearly, the conduct described in subdivisions (a), (c), (d) and (e) covers conduct with either experienced or innocent women. … A substantial potential for social harm is revealed even by the act of encouraging an established prostitute to alter her business relations.

Johnson v. Kishel

83 Cal. App. 2d 391 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 27, 1948

The first subdivision of the will rather clearly discloses an intention to establish a trust for the benefit of the grandson. … The clause in question then follows and is qualified by the expression “to the end and purpose that.”

People v. Jenkins

34 Cal. App. 3d 893 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 29, 1973

(Note, Effect of Immunity Grant on Criminal Appeal, Sentencing, and Parole (1966) 18 Stan.L.Rev. 709; Annot, Plea of Guilty or Conviction As Resulting In Loss of Privilege Against Self-Incrimination as to Crime in Question … On the other hand, if the witness either denies, acknowledges or qualifies the truth of the prior statement, then the statement may be introduced without violating the confrontation clause. (Nelson v.

Reliable Tree Experts v. Baker

200 Cal. App. 4th 785 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 7, 2011

This type of decision is clearly compatible with the Prevailing Wage Law, for otherwise the statute would be meaningless: if a state or local agency used its own employees, there would never be a need for a contract *797 … The existence of the established bidding procedures used by Caltrans is proof that the practice of hiring private contractors to perform maintenance work of government-owned or -operated property is widespread.

Nafsu v. Hurd

101 Cal. Rptr. 2d 426 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 14, 2001

Do Nafsu's Allegations Establish Protected Communications? … The defense attorney was clearly an authorized participant in the action and is alleged to have made the statements in the discussions preceding the settlement of the action.

In Re Jones

27 Cal. App. 4th 1032 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 23, 1994

Jackson reaffirmed Crowson and concluded that it established two relevant propositions: “(1) that proof of a prior conviction establishes only the minimum elements of the crime, even if the charging pleading contained additional … Indeed, far from establishing that proof of the substance of a prior conviction is limited to matters necessarily established by the prior judgment of conviction, those cases declare that the court may look to the entire

People v. Myers

157 Cal. App. 3d 1162 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 29, 1984

The requirement the People both plead and prove a defendant’s prior felony convictions beyond a reasonable doubt when establishing probation ineligibility pursuant to section 1203, subdivision (e)(4), 2 mandates the record … That he has not been induced to plead guilty by any promise or representation of a lesser sentence, probation, reward, immunity, or anything else.

Arnett v. Five Gill Nets

48 Cal. App. 3d 454 · California Court of Appeal · May 27, 1975

It might plausibly be argued, therefore, that fishing rights given by regulation are not protected and state jurisdiction is established. Legislative history is silent as to the interpretation of the provision. See H.R. … The State finally argues that the State has a right under its police power to qualify the Indian fishing rights on the reservation in the interest of conservation and contends that section 7155 is a proper conservation measure