Case law

In Re Gomez

179 Cal. App. 4th 1272 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 2, 2009

This establishes a maximum release date. … By the Department’s reckoning, the Legislature clearly expressed its preference that “any person who is convicted” of a “ ‘violent felony’ ” is subject to the worktime credit limitations of section 2933.1(a).

Galzinski v. Somers

2 Cal. App. 5th 1164 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 31, 2016

Thus, even an “inquiry” by an employee’s supervisor must qualify as an “investigation.” 11 procedure. … The four possible findings on these allegations were sustained (“The investigation disclosed enough evidence to clearly prove the allegation”), not sustained (“The investigation failed to reveal enough evidence to clearly

People v. Ramos

5 Cal. App. 5th 897 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 21, 2016

Even under the narrowest definition of the term, the examination of a percipient witness qualifies as a “critical stage” in the proceedings. … (Id. at p. 74; see also Carroll, supra, 140 Cal.App.3d at p. 144 [trial may continue in the absence of a self-represented defendant “where defendant clearly chooses to represent himself and then clearly, voluntarily, and

Board of Supervisors v. McMahon

219 Cal. App. 3d 286 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 29, 1990

established and it appears that irreparable injury will flow from its refusal. … ‘A municipal corporation, created by a state for the better ordering of government, has no privileges or immunities under the federal constitution which it may invoke in opposition to the will of its creator.

Gould v. People

56 Cal. App. 3d 909 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 1, 1976

Here, plaintiffs seek not only injunctive relief but also damages by way of reimbursement for moneys expended in prosecuting the obscenity cases against them; this violates the age-old common law principle of judicial immunity … Clearly, here, plaintiffs in the one felony and the two misdemeanor actions pending against them have standing and the entire judicial system, trial and appellate mechanism, is available to them to challenge the issues.

Totten v. Board of Supervisors

43 Cal. Rptr. 3d 244 · California Court of Appeal · May 18, 2006

These two sections establish a minimum annual budget for Ventura County’s public safety agencies. … The revenue in the fund shall be allocated to “each qualified county in proportion to its share of the total taxable sales in all qualified counties during the most recent calendar year for which sales have been reported

People v. Treggs

171 Cal. App. 2d 537 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 29, 1959

Sergeant Aure said *542 appellant’s statements were made freely and voluntarily, with no promises of reward or hope of immunity. … Appellant does not question the fact that the corpus delicti was established.

People v. Gonzalez

California Court of Appeal · Jan 23, 2024

(b)(1)) also qualify as strikes. (People v. Briceno (2004) 34 Cal.4th 451, 462.) … Anderson (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 587, 600 [“Clearly, the Legislature intended that the qualifying status of a conviction would be fixed upon the date of the prior conviction, so that no subsequent actions . . . could alter

P. ex rel. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Rubin

California Court of Appeal · Jul 12, 2021

Under the anti-SLAPP statute, a defendant ordinarily has the burden of establishing a plaintiff’s claims arise from its protected activity; if the defendant met its burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to establish … If we protect the reports and claims under section 425.16 because they eventually could be used in connection with an official proceeding, we would effectively be providing immunity for any kind of criminal fraud so long

In Re San Chung

11 Cal. App. 511 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 18, 1909

as to whether the legislative body has exceeded the limits of its constitutional authority, but it must clearly appear that some fundamental right of the individual has been invaded and a personal privilege unfairly impaired … right to labor in this or any honest, necessary, and in itself harmless calling, where it can be the most conveniently, advantageously and profitably carried on without injury to others, is'one of the highest privileges and immunities

People v. Cornelius

94 Cal. Rptr. 2d 326 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 26, 2000

The court also recognized that under section 3046, the minimum term for an indeterminate sentence is "seven calendar years or ... a term as established pursuant to any other section of law that establishes a minimum period … In Jefferson, that "`other section of law' that established] a `minimum period of confinement' for [the] defendant's life sentence [was] section 186.22 [subdivision] (b)(4), which pertains to criminal street gangs, and establishes

Bui v. Ky

California Court of Appeal · May 8, 2024

Second, the court analyzed whether plaintiff met her burden of establishing the minimal merit of her claims. … Barrett, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 39), there are recognized outer bounds of such immunity.

Alston v. Dawe

California Court of Appeal · Jul 28, 2020

The attorney-plaintiffs therefore established a termination of Case 2 in their favor. … Alston from establishing the element of a favorable termination of the underlying action.

County of Sonoma v. Stavrinides CA1/1

California Court of Appeal · Feb 22, 2024

Among other things, it provides that qualified patients and their primary caregivers have limited immunity from prosecution for violation of various sections of the Health and Safety Code regulating marijuana including the … The limited immunity applies only to a nuisance action based solely on the doing of the act that the Legislature has immunized.

Larimer v. Smith

130 Cal. App. 98 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 27, 1933

The loss of the original was sufficiently established. There is evidence that it was delivered to the appellant, who denies that he ever had possession of the instrument. … These rulings are harmless for the reason that the fact thus sought to be elicited was otherwise fully established. The excluded answers would have been merely cumulative.

McMahon v. City of Los Angeles

172 Cal. App. 4th 1324 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 8, 2009

When a complaint is unfounded, it “means that the investigation clearly established that the allegation is not true. [][]... … ‘Exonerated’ means that the investigation clearly established that the actions of the peace or custodial officer that formed the basis for the complaint are not violations of law or department policy.” (Pen.

Aspen Pictures, Inc. v. Oceanic Steamship Co.

148 Cal. App. 2d 238 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 4, 1957

Supp. 759, 761 ; “Section 4 of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act establishes sixteen exceptions from liability. … The question clearly called for the witnesses’ conclusion.

Fredenburg v. City of Fremont

14 Cal. Rptr. 3d 437 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 11, 2004

The Attorney General has defined a serious sex offender as *417 one convicted of certain offenses, including child molestation, who does not have the aggravated criminal record sufficient to qualify him as a high-risk offender … In light of this conclusion, we need not discuss any issue of immunity. 7 We close with an observation.

Investors Equity v. Schmidt

California Court of Appeal · Feb 4, 2015

Also ‘[a]s to any application of Hawaii law, including the possible direct or indirect application of principles of sovereign immunity, it has not been established that even if the case remained in California . . . a California … Defendants asserted that all of these findings “are now the law of the case going forward,” and argued the first two were sufficient to establish Hawaii’s suitability as an alternative forum, while the third demonstrated

Driver v. Melone

11 Cal. App. 3d 746 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 30, 1970

The evidence seems clearly to imply that he, as an engineer and as an experienced dealer in real estate, was not interested in the building department’s requirements. Those defects were glaringly obvious. … A provision in a contract of sale that the buyer takes the property in the condition in which it is, or ‘as is,’ does not necessarily confer on the seller a general immunity from liability for fraud.