Case law

People v. Chavez

124 Cal. App. 3d 215 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 5, 1981

The foregoing summary clearly demonstrates that defendant did not have an interpreter “throughout the proceedings.” … I understand that his Spanish-speaking counsel was unable to clearly communicate with the defendant!

Nickell v. Rosenfield

82 Cal. App. 369 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 16, 1927

However, it must be noted that the court first advised the jury as to the duty of plaintiff in the premises, and then used the term “ordinary care” qualified by the words “in this respect.” … some definite regulations and some standards established that would clearly outline a course of conduct on the part of travelers of all sorts tending to promote safety.

Paleny v. Fireplace Products U.S., Inc.

California Court of Appeal · Jun 27, 2024

Appellant opposed the motion, arguing that freezing her eggs for potential future use qualified as a pregnancy “related medical condition.” … Appeals Bd. (1978) 22 Cal.3d 658, 668 [requiring deference to an administrative agency’s interpretation of a statute unless it is clearly erroneous].)

Tenborg v. CalCoastNews CA2/6

California Court of Appeal · Jul 28, 2015

In addition, the trial court found that Tenborg "provides sufficient evidence to establish the falsity of the statement[s]," that "a few of the statements are clearly defamatory," and that the statements were of and concerning … Superior Court (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 961, 2 Latex paint may qualify as hazardous waste if it contains toxic substances.

Rodie v. Board of Administration

115 Cal. App. 3d 559 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 29, 1981

Our conclusion complies with the established policy requiring a liberal interpretation of pension statutes in favor of the applicant. (See Cavitt v. … The file was actually sent to the court two days after the hearing and discussion between Rodie’s attorney and the court at a subsequent hearing clearly indicates a mutual understanding that the file was in evidence. 9 Code

People v. Vassar

207 Cal. App. 2d 318 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 30, 1962

Another qualified expert witness, Joseph H. … If the testimony of Adams may be considered as attempting to establish another transaction or the commission of another offense, it appears to us that such a transaction was so clearly connected with the present offense charged

G.R. v. Intelligator

185 Cal. App. 4th 606 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 10, 2010

The court noted that the Rosenthal Act could be circumvented with ease if the litigation privilege applied, because a payee would be immunized by simply filing suit on the debt. … “The trial court’s fee determination‘ “ ‘will not be disturbed unless the appellate court is convinced that it is clearly wrong.’ ” ’ [Citation.]” (Id. at p. 1322.)

People v. Mohamed

247 Cal. App. 4th 152 · California Court of Appeal · May 3, 2016

Evans, who was not even qualified as a nurse, much less a physician, clearly did not share appellant’s medical knowledge, training, and background to enable her to appreciate the risks presented by appellant’s multiple deviations … It need not be sufficient to establish every element of the charged offense or to establish the precise facts to which the accomplice testified. [Citations.]

Price v. Eisan

194 Cal. App. 2d 363 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 27, 1961

Defendants contend that Shaw testified that he was representing both parties and this testimony established the dual agency. … While such is the law, those eases are clearly distinguishable on their facts from the instant case.

Lopez v. Quaempts CA3

California Court of Appeal · Nov 29, 2021

And the qualified nature of Indian sovereignty modifies that principle only by placing a tribe’s immunity, like its other governmental powers and attributes, in Congress’s hands.” (Michigan, at pp. 788-789.) … Lopez fails to show that the Tribe unequivocally and clearly waived its sovereign immunity from suit in this case.

Tokaji v. State Board of Equalization

20 Cal. App. 2d 612 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 30, 1937

The legislature acted clearly within its power and the limitation complained of cannot be said to be an invasion of any constitutional rights. As was declared by the United States Supreme Court in Crowley v. … So definitely is this established by a long line of decisions that it is settled beyond all reasonable controversy.

Stephenson v. Stephenson

65 Cal. App. 2d 120 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 3, 1944

Appellant was named as executrix of the will and qualified as such on April 23, 1941. Respondent is the son and only child of decedent by a former marriage. … All of the interested parties were then before the court and the issues were clearly set forth.

Szmaciarz v. State Personnel Board

79 Cal. App. 3d 904 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 20, 1978

However, if the penalty imposed was under all the facts and circumstances clearly excessive, this will be deemed an abuse of discretion and this court is not powerless to act. (Harris v. Alcoholic Bev. etc. … State Personnel Bd., supra, 15 Cal.3d 194 , the California Supreme Court established the right of a permanent state employee to procedural due process before discipline can be imposed.

Borel v. City of Murrieta CA4/3

California Court of Appeal · Nov 30, 2023

DISCUSSION Section 1799.107 became effective in 1984, and through it, the Legislature sought to provide a qualified immunity to public entities and emergency rescue personnel providing emergency services. … In this case, the City attempted 5 to meet its burden by doing the latter; it sought to establish it is exempt from liability due to statutory immunity.

Neilson v. City of California City

35 Cal. Rptr. 3d 453 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 3, 2005

The use of the phrase “[a]ny special tax” and the language in article XIII D, section 3, subdivision (a) that introduces the enumerated exceptions clearly establish that a special tax receiving a two-thirds vote may be imposed … Who are the “qualified electors”?

569 East County etc. v. Backcountry etc.

California Court of Appeal · Dec 29, 2016

For all of demurrer raised such issues as the statute of limitations under Government Code section 65009, subdivisions (c) and (d), the official and legislative immunities protections enjoyed by elected officials (Gov. … It is well established that "[t]he amount of an attorney fee award under the anti-SLAPP statute is computed by the trial court in accordance with the familiar 'lodestar' method. [Citation.]

Diablo Valley College Faculty Senate v. Contra Costa Community College District

56 Cal. Rptr. 3d 294 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 21, 2007

Assembly Bill 1725 established a statewide board of governors and charged this body with establishing minimum standards to govern academic matters, hiring, administration and governance. … Thus, the Legislature envisioned clearly defined and enhanced powers for these administrators.

Cutler v. Franchise Tax Bd.

California Court of Appeal · Sep 2, 2014

if the taxpayer purchased other qualified small business stock within 60 days. … In this case, we are convinced the trial court’s decision was clearly wrong. 1. The Governing Principles The principles applicable to an attorney fee award under section 1021.5 are these.

Moore v. Levy

128 Cal. App. 687 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 14, 1933

In contemplation of the foregoing well established rule of law, the judgment is not excessive.” The next point is that the award to Victor A. Moore for damages to his automobile is not supported by the evidence. … Plaintiff Moore testified that no parts were replaced in the car that were not damaged or injured by the collision but that statement is a conclusion of the witness and there was no testimony showing that he was qualified

People v. Roberts

California Court of Appeal · Sep 17, 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.