Case law

MacKay v. Security-First National Bank

40 Cal. App. 2d 132 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 16, 1940

Upon application therefor, the will and three codicils thereto were admitted to probate, and the Security-First National Bank of Los Angeles was appointed and qualified as executor. … The decree of distribution properly held in accordance with the intention of the testator expressed in his will that if the assets of the estate are insufficient to fulfill the trusts established in favor of his wife and

Hensley v. Harris

151 Cal. App. 2d 821 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 19, 1957

Hunt, 141 Cal.App.2d 782, 789 [ 297 P.2d 653 ] and other cases which clearly establish the correctness of this statement. … The law on the subject is well established to the contrary of the contention urged by defendants that plaintiff may not claim error in the instruction. It was declared by this court in Colgrove v.

Slater v. Lawyers' Mutual Insurance

227 Cal. App. 3d 1415 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 26, 1991

Hence, there was no dispute about whether the “occurrence” qualified under the policy. Moreover, the injured parties filed their lawsuit within the policy period. … Here Lawyers’ Mutual neither contends nor has had the opportunity to establish any prejudice from Slater’s failure to report the earlier filed claim within the policy period.

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

People v. Brimmer

230 Cal. App. 4th 782 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 16, 2014

The opinion clearly indicates defendant was armed with and used a firearm during the commission of his possession of the firearm, and defendant does not argue otherwise on appeal. … Thus, there is no constitutional requirement that the facts be established beyond a reasonable doubt.”

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.

In Re Estate of O'Connor

2 Cal. App. 470 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 14, 1905

The position taken by respondent is clearly and distinctly stated in the brief of counsel. … It may be said that this provision is only intended to have some qualified trustee ready to take upon distribution.

People v. Community Release Board

96 Cal. App. 3d 792 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 7, 1979

Clearly it can. In Way v. … (a)), and the CRB has established regulations to achieve this goal. (See Cal.Admin. Code, tit. 15, § 2280 et seq.)

Locker v. Kirby

31 Cal. App. 3d 520 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 10, 1973

There is clearly a necessary connection between that which is sought to be prevented and the class to which the rule is directed. Article XX, section 18 of the California Constitution is not offended by the rule. … need not take steps to resolve the factual question or further consider petitioner Harmon’s separate status, since we conclude, adversely to the general contentions of all petitioners, that the challenged regulation is immunized

Kern v. Henry

138 Cal. App. 46 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 11, 1934

rules, this remained a qualified indorsement. … While the escrow instructions contained a clause that the respondents would deliver the third party note and that the same would be duly indorsed by the vendees, these instructions also clearly show that the sum of $26,000

Singh v. Board of Retirement

41 Cal. App. 4th 1180 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 16, 1996

The court noted, however, that “[i]n a number of cases we have established exceptions to this rule . . .” … The second point is quite clearly erroneous, in light of the holding of the Strumsky case, cited supra.

Estate of Huntington

58 Cal. App. 3d 197 · California Court of Appeal · May 13, 1976

Huntington in 1925 is, of course, of crucial importance in establishing his testamentary intent. … She was not qualified to express an opinion concerning the meaning and interpretation of language used by her father in his will.

Swaffield v. Universal Ecsco Corp.

271 Cal. App. 2d 147 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 27, 1969

Shinn, however, demonstrates by his affidavit not only the existence of qualified privilege, but also facts to substantiate probable causé for the belief that his statements were true, *164 and Swaffield’s conviction establishes … (but not necessarily the other) cannot be established.

Kaye v. Jacobs

122 Cal. App. 421 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 8, 1932

The phrase “known as the Christie Jewelry Co.” obviously modifies the language immediately preceding it and is clearly descriptive of “my business”. Equally clear is it that the words “Pres. … Lichtenstein that when he decided to move the business from Bakersfield, in the language of appellant, testifying as a witness at the trial, “he packed everything up, bag and baggage and established the business in Hollywood

People v. Trinidad V.

212 Cal. App. 3d 1077 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 2, 1989

Clearly, the deputy sheriff was reasonable in going to the house and seeking an interview with the occupants. (People v. … It was not necessary, as the trial court apparently believed, that the deputy sheriff be a qualified handwriting expert before he could describe the similarities in the writing.

People v. Floyd

116 Cal. Rptr. 2d 256 · California Court of Appeal · May 1, 2002

Established authority dictates a result contrary to that reached by the majority. … Section 8 of the initiative measure adopted as Proposition 36 clearly states that it applies "prospectively."

Grillo v. Smith

144 Cal. App. 3d 868 · California Court of Appeal · May 24, 1983

The words “angry,” “shouted,” “stormed,” and “kangaroo court” fall clearly on the opinion side of the line. … Neither is it mentioned in the complaint, which is quite specific as to the Editorial but vague and general as to the Article. 2 Since defendants’ affidavits were clearly adequate to establish the accuracy of the Article,

V.S. v. M.L.

California Court of Appeal · Dec 27, 2013

[Victor] has never met Donald and has no relationship with him; clearly he would like to do so but [Mary] has thwarted [Victor’s] attempts.” Donald was born April 20, 2012. … ., supra, 195 Cal.App.4th at p. 213), both Roger and Victor will have qualified to be treated as Donald’s presumed father.

People v. Donovan

272 Cal. App. 2d 413 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 29, 1969

Nevertheless, they sought to argue before the jury that since the prosecution could have requested that Stillinovich be granted immunity (Pen. … , and, further, that while the prosecution could request that immunity be granted a witness, it was under no compulsion so to do.

Assn. for L.A. Deputy Sheriffs v. Macias

California Court of Appeal · Apr 30, 2021

establish. … The trial court concluded otherwise, and the bylaws clearly support the trial court’s conclusion. Nor was Mr. Macias’s removal invalid, as defendants claim, for lack of sufficient votes from qualified directors.