Case law

People v. Hubbard

California Court of Appeal · Aug 19, 2014

In my view this language is critical as it clearly employs “sentence” to mean the aggregate sentence--the sentence that resulted from the total of all felonies charged and convicted. “It is . . . … While there is a debate whether an accurate determination that a petition facially establishes a defendant’s ineligibility is appealable and thus subject to summary dismissal (see People v.

Gonsalves v. City of Dairy Valley

265 Cal. App. 2d 400 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 30, 1968

. * The proceeding is in mandate seeking annulment of the granting of a use permit by the City Council of the City of Dairy Valley for the establishment of a fertilizer plant. … Appellants say the words “in a trial by jury” qualify the phrase “after the plaintiff has completed his opening statement,” just as they qualify the phrase “the presentation of his evidence,” with the result that the right

People v. Raucho

8 Cal. App. 2d 655 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 6, 1935

An employee of the establishment pursued them a short distance, when he was killed by a shot fired by one of the fugitives. … This evidence, forming as it did a part of the res gestae, was clearly admissible.

Caldera Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Regents of the University

205 Cal. App. 4th 338 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 24, 2012

Caldera clearly believes that these strict criteria for federal jurisdiction establish that its complaint belongs in state court. … Moreover, consulting a treaty to establish a deadline that will be used to prove a breach of contract hardly qualifies as a necessary, essential, or substantial question of patent law under section 1338(a) and Christianson

Chevlin v. Los Angeles Community College District

212 Cal. App. 3d 382 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 6, 1989

With Radtke’s approval, Fain permitted Chevlin to receive training at Harbor with the intent that she could then qualify for the registry exam scheduled for October 1982. … City of Colton (1988) 197 Cal.App.3d 1335, 1343 [ 243 Cal.Rptr. 463 ] stated: “[T]he immunity provided governmental entities by section 818.8 for misrepresentation applies not only to the first two types of deceit described

Spiegelman v. Eastman

95 Cal. App. 205 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 30, 1928

The uncontradieted testimony in this case and what we have hereinbefore set forth brings this ease so clearly within the second cause of action set forth in plaintiff’s complaint that we do not need to dwell at length upon … The $28,000 note was transferred by a qualified indorsement and, therefore, carries with it the warranty created by law.

JONATHAN NEIL & ASSOCIATES, INC. v. Jones

119 Cal. Rptr. 2d 660 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 14, 2002

We will begin by summarizing the familiar principles established in the seminal cases. … Although approving the rule of law established by those cases, and even though concluding State Compensation Insurance Fund was not immune from suit, the court stated: "We emphasize that in reaching this result we are not

Munsee v. Horn

71 Cal. App. 2d 453 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 30, 1977

Any eligible faculty member who is recommended as qualified shall be promoted, advanced, reappointed or given tenure by the president.” … trial court also suggested that since section 7.53'of the R & A Policy authorizes its “amendment” by the academic senate, “when approved by the President,” any interpretation which had the effect of amending the document clearly

Shalz v. Union School District

58 Cal. App. 2d 599 · California Court of Appeal · May 18, 1943

McGuire, 219 U.S. 549 [ 31 S.Ct. 259 , 55 L.Ed. 328 ], in which the court said: “Freedom of contract is a qualified and not an absolute right. … Liberty implies the absence of arbitrary restraint, not immunity from reasonable regulations and prohibitions imposed in the interests of the community.” The judgment and order are affirmed. Adams, P.

Los Angeles County Flood Control District v. Mindlin

106 Cal. App. 3d 698 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 9, 1980

Wright was not qualified to testify concerning the location of the parcel in relation to the river. No attempt was made to so qualify him, although the trial court did suggest that such an attempt be undertaken. … The offer was made with a clearly stated condition attached of reserving the right of appeal.

Malinson v. Black

83 Cal. App. 2d 375 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 27, 1948

It is true that there is evidence to establish that appellant was not exceeding the legal speed limit, but" proof that one did not violate the speed limit does not establish freedom from negligence. … That ease held that although the owner of property may, without being qualified as an expert, testify as to his opinion of the value of that which he owns, the rule does not extend to the giving of testimony as to the cost

Back v. Farnsworth

25 Cal. App. 2d 212 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 1, 1938

It was held the facts involved establish a resulting trust in favor of the respondent. From that decree this appeal was perfected. … Farnsworth, was appointed and qualified as administrator with the will annexed of her estate. The house and lot were included in the inventory as the property of her estate.

Martinez v. Department of Transportation

238 Cal. App. 4th 559 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 7, 2015

Two were broad statements of law that, without some qualification, conveyed to the jury the idea Caltrans was totally immune from all claims. … Finally factor 4, the efficacy of objections or admonitions, clearly weighs in favor of reversal. Ms.

Pacific Caisson & Shoring v. Bernards Bros.

California Court of Appeal · May 19, 2015

East West Bank (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 1309, 1315) unless clearly erroneous or unauthorized (Munroe v. Los Angeles County Civil Service Com. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1295, 1303). … (e), italics added), clearly relates to post-suspension conduct.

Feldman v. Keene

210 Cal. App. 2d 37 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 21, 1962

Keene, Jr., was appointed receiver, and duly qualified as such. By agreement of the interested parties the sum of $2,075.81 was transferred from the funds in escrow with Pacific to the trust account of Surety. … It is not questioned that unless invalidated by the mentioned orders of the commissioner, Feldman’s attachment of the property of Surety established a valid lien thereon.

People v. Lortz

137 Cal. App. 3d 363 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 16, 1982

It has long been established that a defendant who has been subjected to illegal arrest should not by virtue of such illegality gain immunity from punishment for the offense for which he was arrested. … We agree with the trial court that defendant’s conduct established the specific intent requirement of the statute. The judgment is affirmed. Dalsimer, J., and Byrne, J., * concurred.

Tulare Medical Center Property etc. v. Valdivia

California Court of Appeal · Apr 8, 2026

First, the CC&Rs are clearly a “written instrument relating to real property” within the meaning of subdivision (a) of section 53. … Second, the provision addressing abortion clinics is clearly a “prohibition” for purposes of section 53.

People Ex Rel. Lyons v. McAleer

33 Cal. App. 135 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 1, 1917

Code, see. 4230), which position, as such deputy in charge of said department, McAleer, as the duly appointed, qualified, and acting deputy, had held from the date of his appointment on June 2,1911. … In the case at bar, no competitive examination was held; nor was there any observance of the civil service scheme adopted, which was clearly intended to prevent transfers or appointment to office, other than in accordance

Schoendorf v. U.D. Registry, Inc.

118 Cal. Rptr. 2d 313 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 28, 2002

If the defendant establishes a prima facie case, then the burden shifts to the plaintiff to establish 1 “a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim,” ’ i.e., ‘make a prima facie showing of facts which would … As stated in UDR’s brief: “The record clearly establishes that UDR did nothing more than report that which is contained in the public record regarding litigation. . . .

Conservatorship of Morrison

206 Cal. App. 3d 304 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 30, 1988

fails to take the necessary steps, to effect the transfer of the qualified patient to another physician who will effectuate the directive of the qualified patient.” … However, a transfer for the purpose of *312 enabling a willing physician to remove a nasogastric tube at a conservator’s direction is clearly a transfer for medical reasons.