Case law

Allec v. Briggs

90 Cal. App. 525 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 31, 1928

Clearly the foregoing evidence is insufficient to establish a partnership between R. H. Briggs and Stella Briggs. … The trial judge must have so held, else he would not have qualified the judgment rendered against the wife. Although the trial court found that an account was stated between plaintiff and R. H.

People v. Pacheco

116 Cal. App. 3d 617 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 9, 1981

There, the burden is on the defendant to establish a “substantial doubt” that a death qualified jury is not constitutionally neutral with respect to guilt (Hovey, supra, fn. 41, p. 19 ). … On this appeal, understandably defendant has not articulated clearly which of the above three constitutional approaches he urges.

Selkin v. City of Los Angeles CA2/5

California Court of Appeal · Feb 24, 2026

plaintiffs’ argument that the city was liable for failure to use due care in hiring employees and discharging its duty under Health and Safety Code section 17960, because the city had voluntarily assumed a duty to hire qualified … , including inspection immunity and discretionary act immunity, barred plaintiffs’ claim.

L.A. Cty. Office of the Dist. Attorney v. Civil Serv. Comm'n of L.A.

55 Cal. App. 4th 187 · California Court of Appeal · May 7, 1997

The letter grades had the respective meanings: A—exceptionally qualified; B—well qualified; C—qualified; D—limited potential; and E—not qualified. … Murphy thought Walls deserved a “qualified” or C rating, but rated him “well qualified” or a B to “give him the benefit of the doubt.”

Mittelman v. Seifert

17 Cal. App. 3d 51 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 23, 1971

Carrying passengers under instrument flight conditions without having the rating clearly violates the regulations prohibiting such flights. Seifert had not qualified for instrument flight. Dr. Albert W. … Carney was qualified for instrument flight. Dr.

Gallaher v. Superior Court

103 Cal. App. 3d 666 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 21, 1980

“It is well established that the defendant at a preliminary examination has the right to examine and cross-examine witnesses for the purpose of overcoming the prosecution’s case or establishing an affirmative defense.” … “It is well established that the scope of proper cross-examination may extend to the whole transaction of which the witness has testified, or it may be employed to elicit any matter which may tend to overcome, qualify or

Lungren v. Davis

234 Cal. App. 3d 806 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 25, 1991

The petitioner brought an action to establish his right to the office. 6 The Supreme Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the office until an elected judge could assume office. … A number of candidates qualified for the primary election and the petitioner and one other candidate qualified for a runoff in the general election.

People v. Burroughs

6 Cal. App. 5th 378 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 5, 2016

It held that “in a commitment hearing under the MDO Act, the People may not prove the facts underlying the commitment offense (that are necessary to establish the qualifying offense) through a mental health expert‟s opinion … , or otherwise non- qualifying.

Robinson v. McAbee

64 Cal. App. 709 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 12, 1923

The rule, however, is not applicable to persons who vote at a particular election but who are not qualified voters at the time of casting their votes. … Of course, such a person will not be compelled to testify as to the person for whom he voted until it is clearly shown he voted illegally.

Wilson v. Jefferson

163 Cal. App. 3d 952 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 22, 1985

Appellant resisted the motion, contending: “That the request for the production of documents by plaintiff are either clearly privileged or ‘a mere fishing bill’ [stc]. … “That plaintiff has no right to inspect files of none [szc] party clients in violation of the attorney client privilege, work product, right of privacy and constitutional immunity against unlawful searches ...”

Redevelopment Agency v. First Christian Church

140 Cal. App. 3d 690 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 8, 1983

Clearly, any investigation pertaining to its relevant history would have taken considerable time and effort. … It is well established that when a party complains that any particular instruction is too general, lacks clarity, or is incomplete, the complaint must be coupled with a request for an additional or qualifying instruction

Hawn v. County of Ventura

73 Cal. App. 3d 1009 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 7, 1977

A citizen, a qualified voter, is no more nor no less so because he lives in the city or on the farm.” (Italics added.) … Lockport held that this New York statute was immune from attack under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

People v. Saez

237 Cal. App. 4th 1177 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 18, 2015

We agree because the conviction fails to establish four necessary elements. First, it does not establish use. … And, although recklessly pointing a weapon at someone during a crime qualifies as using menace to effect the crime, 15 the conviction does not establish that Saez recklessly used the gun as part of the same event giving rise

Pomona College v. Superior Court

45 Cal. App. 4th 1716 · California Court of Appeal · May 31, 1996

Clearly this language is not limited, ... to governmental as opposed to nongovernmental agencies. … Goodgold (1985) 107 A.D.2d 481 [ 487 N.Y.S.2d 565, 569-570 ].) 6 We do not mean to suggest a tenured teacher is immune from termination.

Bruce A. M. v. Superior Court

270 Cal. App. 2d 566 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 11, 1969

This jurisdiction confers special rights and immunities. He is, as specified by the statute, shielded from *571 publicity. He may be confined, but with rare exceptions he may not be jailed along with adults. … The People suggest that since the qualifying paragraphs were adopted at the same time that another amendment caused misdemeanants under 18 years of age to be embraced within the scope of the section, those paragraphs should

People v. Elkus

59 Cal. App. 396 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 23, 1922

This restriction applies to and qualifies every power conferred upon the chartered city. … In reaching this conclusion, full consideration has been given to the principle that all laws are presumed to be constitutional and that they are to be declared invalid only when they clearly appear to be so.

Luckett v. La Tour

122 Cal. App. 271 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 31, 1932

Luckett that in 1926 he filed suit for divorce in Texas, after establishing his residence there and his testimony, received without objection: “Q. Then after you secured a divorce you and the present Mrs. … These contentions are not attacks upon the several findings as a whole, but are the result of the selection of portions thereof, removing them from their context and qualifying phrases and clauses, and in violation of the

Acosta v. County of San Diego

126 Cal. App. 2d 455 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 7, 1954

It is defendant’s argument that the removal of this restriction clearly indicates that the criminal and civil jurisdiction over Indians residing on the reservations was exclusively in the United States government prior to … They are qualified to serve as jurors and are competent witnesses in judicial proceedings. They are subject to selective service and entitled to the benefits accruing therefrom.

Boeing Co. v. Continental Casualty Co.

69 Cal. Rptr. 3d 322 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 20, 2007

Citing the language of the additional insured endorsement, Continental contended Boeing can qualify as an additional insured only if Boeing can establish that the insured, i.e., CIA, made a written request that additional … The rules pertaining to contractual interpretation “are clearly delineated in published case law, and apply equally to insurance contracts. They are summarized in Palmer v. Truck Ins.

Skidgel v. Cal. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd.

California Court of Appeal · Jun 14, 2018

(a), (i) [state and counties immune from liability resulting from implementation of weekly overtime rules].) B. … the provider qualified for 6 The state was not a party to the case.