Case law

People v. Martin

28 Cal. App. 3d 956 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 24, 1972

It is difficult to conceive of a record which more clearly demonstrates a voluntary, intelligent and knowing decision by a defendant to enter a plea of guilty to the charges against him. … Fotinos denied that defendant was threatened in any way or was promised any immunity or reward.

Jackson v. Underwriters' Report, Inc.

21 Cal. App. 2d 591 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 29, 1937

Irrespective, however, of the question of the legal sufficiency of the complaint, it seems clear that in any event the evidence adduced on behalf of plaintiff, as a matter of law, failed to establish a case of libel; and … Consequently it fell clearly within the provisions of subdivision 4 of section 47; and no cause of action was established. It follows that the nonsuit was properly granted.

California First Amendment Coalition v. Superior Court

78 Cal. Rptr. 2d 847 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 9, 1998

Names of applicants “are kept confidential in and outside the office, in part, to encourage qualified applicants to seek consideration.” … The burden is on the Governor to *173 establish the conditions for creation of the privilege.

People v. Mitchell

197 Cal. App. 4th 1009 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 26, 2011

The right of appeal should not be considered waived or abandoned except where the record clearly establishes it. [Citation.]” (Vargas, supra, 13 Cal.App.4th at p. 1662 .) … The record before us does not clearly establish defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to appeal. It is not clear defendant actually understood the right he was being asked to waive.

Monterey Club v. Superior Court

48 Cal. App. 2d 131 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 28, 1941

The rights of the people to be protected and immunized from a nuisance affecting the public well-being where such nuisance exists, are such that in granting a temporary injunction upon sufficient allegations contained in … The lack of authority of the courts to resort to equity for the purpose of justifying action of the character taken by the court in the instant case is clearly established in People v.

Brock & Co. v. Board of Supervisors

32 Cal. App. 2d 550 · California Court of Appeal · May 8, 1939

taxes thereon were not *555 violative of the due process of law or the equal protection of the law provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, or contrary to petitioner’s rights and immunities … The evidence clearly shows that appellant intended that the jewelry should be displayed during the height of the winter season in Honolulu with the hope of making sales thereof to wealthy residents to whom it was shown, and

People v. Hooper

186 Cal. App. 2d 25 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 1, 1960

Wade testified he was not promised immunity for testifying, but he did admit that he had been convicted of a felony *27 (robbery) in 1957 and had been released approximately three months prior to this event. … In this connection, it is argued that if defendant Weather-spoon had exercised management over the premises and furnished funds to support this enterprise, in the way of maintenance, repair or rental, she would clearly be

County of L.A. v. Super. Ct.

California Court of Appeal · Dec 19, 2013

from dementia, which is not a qualifying diagnosis” under the LPS Act. … “Clearly,” the petition contends, the passage of Probate Code section 2356.5 was intended by the Legislature “to ensure that dementia patients would not be made conservatees under the LPS Act, but only under the Probate Code

People v. Yuen

32 Cal. App. 2d 151 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 14, 1939

The contention that there was an organized group of vigilantes in Nevada County is not established. … The sentences were not harsh nor excessive, and the record clearly indicates the guilt of these defendants, and discloses no valid reason upon which they could base any plea for probation.

Rodgers v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

168 Cal. App. 3d 567 · California Court of Appeal · May 22, 1985

Section 139.5 provides in part: “(a) The administrative director shall establish ... a rehabilitation unit . . .: [¶] (1) To foster, review, and approve rehabilitation plans developed by a qualified rehabilitation representative … Clearly, the risk of applicant’s injury in the rehabilitation program should be borne by- Company, not by applicant. (Id., at p. 879.)

Martin v. Bridgeport Community Assn., Inc.

173 Cal. App. 4th 1024 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 7, 2009

Section 1364 clearly differentiates between an owner and residents such as the Martins. … The Martins failed to establish standing under any of the other arguments they advanced.

Brancati v. Cachuma Village, LLC

California Court of Appeal · Nov 13, 2023

Here we decide an expert is qualified to render an opinion on whether a person’s exposure to toxic mold is harmful. … Dept. of Social Service (La.Ct.App. 2003) 849 So.2d 724, 733 [genuine issue of material fact where in a dispute between experts, one doctor said mold was “capable of compromising the immune system”].)

Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton Corp. v. Superior Court

208 Cal. App. 2d 803 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 24, 1962

Clearly Allis’ petition, even when considered with the other pleadings, does not establish any enforceable duty on the part of Benas and Ross to award the contract to Allis. … “It is apparent that were the court to order respondent to award the contract to Judson as the next lowest qualified bidder (assuming, contrary to the fact, that United States Steel Corporation was not qualified), it would

People v. Bowen

137 Cal. App. 3d 1020 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 9, 1982

The sentencing issue is the sole reason that this opinion qualifies for publication. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 976(b).) We therefore deal with it first. … Similarly, defendant’s unsupported assertion that “[w]ithout testimony from the victim fear could not be established” is particularly unpersuasive.

Gardiana v. Small Claims Court

59 Cal. App. 3d 412 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 23, 1976

“It is apparent that such a court was established in order to offer a means of obtaining speedy settlement of claims of small amounts. … The question is one for the judicial determination of the court, and its ruling will not be disturbed unless the record clearly discloses an abuse of discretion, . . .” (Hilbert v.

People v. Jackson

178 Cal. App. 3d 694 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 11, 1986

California Evidence Code section 1240 codified a long-established exception to the hearsay rule, popularly called the “spontaneous exclamation” exception. 6 Vega testified that after appellant and his accomplice had been … The trial court did not err in admitting Vega’s testimony concerning the statements of victim Mann because they were clearly uttered “under the stress of excitement” caused by the robbery.

People v. Burgess

206 Cal. App. 3d 762 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 16, 1988

Moreno for cause, specifically finding that no cause had been established. … Hamilton is clearly distinguishable, but instructive.

Bergerow v. Parker

4 Cal. App. 169 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 24, 1906

The question herein involved is the right of the appellant to the salary which by law is attached to the office, and upon that question the rule is well established in this state that “the right to receive the salary is an … agreed facts herein not only fail to show that there was any fault upon the part of the appellant, or that there was any voluntary cessation on his part in the discharge of the duties of his office, but instead thereof clearly

City of Montebello v. Vasquez

California Court of Appeal · May 30, 2014

The court then determined appellants’ legislative actions and votes qualified as protected activity, but found the City established a probability of prevailing on the merits because the evidence that Athens had contributed … LaMarche (2003) 31 Cal.4th 728, 735 [“The Legislature clearly knows how to create an exemption from the anti-SLAPP statute when it wishes to do so”].)

Chandler v. Guiol

28 Cal. App. 3d 818 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 20, 1972

Chandler was appointed administratrix on August 5, 1964 and filed her qualifying bond with Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., the surety. … As authority for her contention, she cites Estate of Barbikas, 171 Cal.App.2d 452 [ 341 P.2d 32 ], That case is clearly distinguishable.