Case law

Vanguard Insurance v. Hartford Insurance

9 Cal. App. 3d 765 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 21, 1970

Vanguard seeks to establish a third major category for non-resident “persons under the age of 21 in the care of an Insured.” … The facts clearly support the conclusion that David Myers was not a resident of the Anderson household. Judgment affirmed. Cobey, Acting P. J., and Allport, J., concurred.

People v. Snipe

25 Cal. App. 3d 742 · California Court of Appeal · May 18, 1972

The child was injured on February 26, 1969, and the amendment became effective in November of that year, several months before the immunity of the earlier statute had attached. … Neither does it affect the quality or quantum of the People’s evidence or the burden required to establish respondents’ guilt.

Larwin-Southern California, Inc. v. JGB Investment Co.

101 Cal. App. 3d 626 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 12, 1979

This agreement was clearly a bilateral one, the consideration for which was the mutual promises of the parties.... … That duty constitutes legally sufficient consideration to establish mutuality of obligation.

People v. Mooring

129 Cal. App. 3d 453 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 4, 1982

Negroes in the general population and their proportion on juries to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination. … Clearly, each of the elements articulated in aggravating the term is present without reference to the two felonies used as enhancements. The court did not err in sentencing appellant.

People v. Stanislawski

180 Cal. App. 3d 748 · California Court of Appeal · May 5, 1986

It is fundamental that in order to be immune from air surveillances or overflights, the person controlling the land must exhibit not merely a subjective desire, but rather an objective, reasonable expectation of privacy with … It follows that here appellant has fallen short of establishing the requisite expectation in order to challenge the legality of the campsite search.

Randall v. Scovis

105 Cal. Rptr. 2d 32 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 5, 2001

In her complaint, plaintiff claimed the attorney's unlawful conduct circumvented established discovery procedures and invaded her constitutional right to privacy. … Such disclosures, as they relate to judicial proceedings, are clearly communicative in nature.

People v. Mitchell

80 Cal. App. 252 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 13, 1926

Expert testimony, given by the insurance adjuster, who qualified as to experience and ability to judge as to values of such property, was sufficient. … The existence, situation, and character of such objects may be established by witnesses. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 1954.)

People v. Roberts

California Court of Appeal · Aug 20, 2021

He characterized it as “clearly antemortem.” Reiber relied on the fact that there was “obvious reddening of the edges. You can see very clearly that this wound is reddened.” … Moreover, the evidence clearly established that defendant habitually carried knives, so Shelton’s testimony would not have been materially helpful on the point defendant sought to make about S.L.

Tarquinio v. Franklin-McKinley School District

88 Cal. App. 3d 832 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 26, 1979

Despite that lack, she was considered the best qualified applicant and the district applied for an eminence credential pursuant to Education Code section 44262. 1 She was reemployed for the 1975-1976 school year and again … The burden of establishing mitigation, of course, rests with respondents.

People v. Stone

89 Cal. App. 2d 853 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 1, 1949

It was not contended that Nevis was promised immunity or leniency with respect to his probation upon any conditions, or at all. … We conclude the evidence corroborating these women upon whom the abortions were performed is adequately established to conform with the statute.

Sugarman v. Brown

California Court of Appeal · Dec 27, 2021

Plaintiff could not establish a probability of prevailing, Mr. Turner argued, because they could not establish they relied on Mr. … Turner did not establish “that the Warrant Share Claims arise from protected activity.”

Bilofsky v. Deukmejian

124 Cal. App. 3d 825 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 21, 1981

In their complaint they allege that Weisberg is a proponent 2 and Bilofsky a circulator of a petition to qualify for the November 1980, general election an initiative measure, requiring establishment of “Smoking and Non-Smoking … or attempted to qualify for placement on the ballot.

Smith v. Department of Motor Vehicles

163 Cal. App. 3d 321 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 31, 1984

If insulin is necessary to control a diabetic condition, the driver is not qualified to operate a motor vehicle. … This, we find, is clearly what the statutory scheme under consideration contemplates.

People v. Superior Court

29 Cal. App. 3d 397 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 14, 1972

Criminal law provides a long-established field for such legislative discretion.” [Citing Metropolitan Casualty Ins. Co. v. Brownell, 294 U.S. 580, 584 ( 79 L.Ed. 1070 , 58 S.Ct. 538 ).] … Section 647, subdivision (if) is clearly severable from and creates an exception to section 647, subdivision (f), and in such situation the tendency is to sustain the statute and invalidate only the exception.

People v. Powell

40 Cal. App. 3d 107 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 26, 1974

This was done in anticipation that for every registered voter that qualified, nine would either not respond, be excused or not qualify. 10 For each of the 1968 venires the jury commissioner expected to need 8,000 qualified … (Excusing Qualified Persons.)

People Ex Rel. Department of Public Works v. Fair

229 Cal. App. 2d 801 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 22, 1964

The requirement of contiguity was first established in this state by City of Oakland v. Pacific Coast Lumber & Mill Co., supra. … Thus, access and unity of use clearly were the controlling factors. This view finds ample support in the authorities.

People v. Steffens

62 Cal. App. 4th 1273 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 7, 1998

have allowed him to plead guilty to one of the felony counts, admit the prior conviction allegations and receive a sentence of 25 years to life. 2 At trial, Buzzeo and Prevost testified for the prosecution under grants of immunity … Under this definition, Brammer’s credit card account number was clearly an “access card.” 5 The court was critical of the Legislature’s wording of the statute.

Clark v. Baxter Healthcare Corp.

100 Cal. Rptr. 2d 223 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 20, 2000

The Court of Appeal did not apply the delayed discovery rule, even though the plaintiff argued that since she also subsequently suffered from immune dysregulation, that fact should give rise to a separate cause of action. … That is appropriate since this is a personal injury suit, to which the one-year statute clearly applies. (§ 340, subd. (3).) 3 Plaintiff Martinez-Ferrer took medication manufactured by the defendants in 1960, and shortly

Generes v. Justice Court

106 Cal. App. 3d 678 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 6, 1980

If Generes did not own the interest she purported to convey, the instrument she filed was clearly false. … Penal Code section 115 differentiates between the two categories, clearly proscribing either a false or a forged instrument.

People v. Williams

10 Cal. App. 3d 745 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 21, 1970

He also asserts the evidence clearly reveals a case of self-defense. The motion to set aside the information is not included in the record, and thus cannot be considered on this appeal. (People v. St. … Absence of a defendant under the following circumstances has been found to be without prejudice, in light of Isby : from a conference in chambers at which immunity was granted a codefendant (People v.