Case law

People v. Scarborough

171 Cal. App. 2d 186 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 8, 1959

The Supreme Court held that the case was closely balanced and guilt was not so clearly established as to render it improbable that the harmful effect of the misconduct of the prosecuting attorney may have turned the scales … The complaining witness’ testimony clearly identified appellant as her assailant.

Craig P. v. Daniel M.

16 Cal. App. 4th 878 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 17, 1993

Rather, the question presented in this case is what is required to establish an intent to abandon. … The trial court further noted that appellant’s interpretation “would provide Civil Code Section 232 immunity to the parent who decides, without notice to the custodial parent or minor, to fulfill his [or her] lifelong ambition

Southern California Edison Co. v. Public Utilities Commission

26 Cal. Rptr. 3d 700 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 4, 2005

That pricing formula established what is commonly referred to as short-run avoided cost (SRAC). … It is factually flawed because the Commission actually did clearly and specifically affirm that the current QF prices are consistent with PURPA.

Coombs v. Pierce

1 Cal. App. 4th 568 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 4, 1991

The document clearly fails to provide a foundation of reliability of the particular machine utilized in Kern County and the manner in which it was used on this occasion. … there was no information regarding who the operator was (presumably Officer Roberts) or if he was competent and qualified to administer the test.

Shapoff v. Scull

222 Cal. App. 3d 1457 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 20, 1990

The privilege that arises by reason of section 769 is at most a qualified one dependent for its existence upon the circumstances of the case. … There the plaintiff sought to establish a materialman’s lien against defendant’s property.

Annette F. v. Sharon S.

15 Cal. Rptr. 3d 100 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 28, 2004

By this definition, the Gay and Lesbian Times clearly qualifies as a “public forum.” (But see Weinberg v. … Annette clearly has not achieved such “pervasive fame or notoriety” as to be considered an “all purpose” public figure. (Gertz, supra, 418 U.S. at p. 351 .)

Asahi Kasei Pharma v. Actelion

California Court of Appeal · Jan 16, 2014

“THE COURT: It clearly seeks to elicit a statement of a third party and the hearsay objection is sustained. … Actelion argues Asahi’s experts were not qualified to testify regarding regulatory approval by the EMEA.

Borikas v. Alameda Unified School District

214 Cal. App. 4th 135 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 6, 2013

The first authorizes school districts to impose “qualified special taxes” consistent with Proposition 13 and pursuant to procedures “established in Article 3.5 (commencing with Section 50075).” (§ 50079, subd. (a).) … As introduced, the legislation broadly provided that subject to Proposition 13, “any school district may impose qualified special taxes upon the district pursuant to the procedures established in Article 3.5 (commencing with

Hammond Lumber Co. v. Gilkey

120 Cal. App. 252 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 27, 1932

Lynch, the respondent herein, qualified as trustee on August 30, 1929; 9. The complaint was amended by inserting the names of Howard E. … The rule in such cases is laid down clearly in Ingrim v.

Manzano v. Olive View Hospital CA2/4

California Court of Appeal · Apr 28, 2016

Defendants moved for summary judgment on the grounds of immunity from liability under sections 856.2 and 854.8, and alternatively, that the undisputed facts established as a matter of law that defendants were not liable for … The court ruled that defendants were immune under section 856.2, finding that Manzano, “in going through the window, was clearly leaving the facility” and that because he was confined, “‘[h]is leaving the facility constituted

AVANT! CORP. v. Superior Court

94 Cal. Rptr. 2d 505 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 6, 2000

Clearly, because a corporation has no right against self-incrimination, it has no Fifth Amendment interests to protect. … Clearly, denial of the stay motion promotes the convenience of the court in the management of its cases. As stated in U.S. v.

Parrott v. Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'n

97 Cal. App. 2d 14 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 17, 1950

Sturdevant, described by one of appellants as “a well-established customer” of long standing, reported to Mr. … Sigler told plaintiff the bank would not guarantee her immunity if she confessed and asked her to go down to the *19 main office to sign a confession.

City of Los Angeles v. Frew

139 Cal. App. 2d 859 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 16, 1956

He was qualified to express his opinion that the easement would add to the difficulty of farming the remaining portion of Section 32. … Many of the offered instructions were refused on the ground that they were covered by other instructions and it appears from the instructions actually given that the court clearly, fairly and fully instructed the jury on

Rice Growers Assn. v. First National Bank

167 Cal. App. 3d 559 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 30, 1985

The purchase of the “Valerie F” and its chartering to a California plaintiff for almost $1.5 million a quarter most assuredly qualifies as a substantial contact with California. … Contrary to Southern’s contention that it was only an out-of-state shipbuilder and thus immune from local jurisdiction under due process, the record reveals that Southern’s forum-related activities were both manifold and

People v. Starski

7 Cal. App. 5th 215 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 5, 2017

And the person who acted in the sincere belief that he or she was protecting or promoting the client’s best interests would be immune from criminal consequence. … Stephens (1968) 68 Cal.2d 864, 918 [“California prohibits the unlawful practice of law . . . to afford protection against persons who are not qualified to practice the profession”].)

Abraham v. Lancaster Community Hospital

217 Cal. App. 3d 796 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 30, 1990

Second, Abraham’s complaint is based on allegations clearly made in connection with pending federal litigation. … Clearly, wife was complaining about and recovered for more than statements in a pleading. Similarly, in Templeton Feed & Grain v.

Placentia-Linda Community Hospital, Inc. v. Zaretsky

107 Cal. App. 3d 850 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 2, 1980

The Legislature clearly recognized that it was consistent with its policy “... to stop or retard the increasing costs of medical care in California” ( Bakersfield, supra) to allow health care facilities to make relatively … It is equally absurd and contrary to the purpose of the act to assume, as the director implies, that the statute contemplates that, in order for new construction to qualify for certificate of exemption, it would be necessary

Desert Bermuda Properties v. Union Bank

265 Cal. App. 2d 146 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 23, 1968

Clearly, we are entitled to take Financial Code, section 952, at full face value without qualifying judicial interpretation. … Sections 952 and 953 were designed to establish rules governing the rights and duties of a depository bank in its handling of the myriad drafts drawn daily by its depositors.

Pacific States Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Coachella

13 Cal. App. 4th 1414 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 1, 1993

Finally, as to the third cause of action, the City and Nelson demurred on the grounds that they were statutorily immune from liability *1420 with respect to the alleged fraud, that plaintiff was without legal right to obtain … This proposed agreement clearly states that it is by and between Pacific and “z7z<?

National Bank of Commerce v. Schirm

3 Cal. App. 696 · California Court of Appeal · May 31, 1906

Whether the assignment included also the cheek to be given on the completion of the work does not clearly appear from the evidence. But this check, which was for the sum of $14,860, was received by him. … There was other evidence also offered to establish these points, which was excluded by the court.