Case law

People v. Adams

53 Cal. App. 3d 109 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 19, 1975

The majority of these experts, however, contend this evidence can now be reliable if the test is performed by a qualified polygrapher and meets certain standardized requirements. 8 Mr. … The Court: “You become, in effect, immune to it so you don’t get any reaction; is that what you are saying?” Answer: “That’s it.”.(Also see Henry S.

People v. Superior Court (Ortiz)

9 Cal. Rptr. 3d 745 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 17, 2004

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ASH is one of four hospitals in this state under the jurisdiction of the Department of Mental Health that were established for the care, treatment and education of mentally disordered individuals … The People contend that section 6082 compels a finding that ASH qualifies as a prison in this context.

Richardson v. La Rancherita of La Jolla, Inc.

98 Cal. App. 3d 73 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 25, 1979

The court was justified in finding that “[t]he transaction as ultimately consummated was clearly within the parameters of the Ser-Bye case...” … To create such a blanket rule of immunity is unwarranted. Judgment affirmed. Cologne, Acting P. J., concurred. Counsel for defendants did not cast their professional advice in concrete.

Truman v. Vargas

275 Cal. App. 2d 976 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 29, 1969

Vargas on her cross-complaint established that she was negligent which she concedes upon her appeal. … That testimony would have to be by somebody who would be qualified to testify as to such matters. ” Mrs.

Los Angeles City High School District v. Schumann

78 Cal. App. 353 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 14, 1926

Clearly the statement in question requires the defendant to sustain the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence, and informs the jury that it must be satisfied that the defendant has done this. … Nothing was said about “preponderance of the evidence,” or “to a moral certainty,” or “beyond a reasonable doubt.” *358 The fact was required to be established to the jury’s satisfaction.

Kelley v. R. F. Jones Co.

272 Cal. App. 2d 113 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 21, 1969

Citing section 1585, Civil Code, 1 such qualified acceptance is said to be a counter-offer or new proposal, thus extinguishing the original offer. … “To establish actual or ostensible authority the principal’s consent need not be express. ‘ Agency may be implied from the facts of a particular ease, and if a principal by his acts has led others to believe that he has conferred

Construction Financial v. Perlite Plastering Co.

53 Cal. App. 4th 170 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 28, 1997

To replace a qualifier, the corporation must file a new application designating the new qualifier. … Diversified cites the well-established principle that a statute should not be given a construction which renders one of the statute’s provisions nugatory (Shoemaker v.

Davis v. Physician Assistant Board

California Court of Appeal · Jul 2, 2021

Sundine opined that, as a physician assistant, Davis was not competent or qualified to perform liposuction surgery. … The statements were clearly and obviously false and/or misleading.

Steiner v. Croonquist

108 Cal. App. Supp. 2d 895 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 26, 1951

That if the acknowledgment be accompanied by such qualifying expressions or circumstances as repel the idea of an intention or contract to pay, no implied promise is created ...' " [8] The running of a statute of limitations … Hill Co., 31 Cal.2d 373 [ 189 P.2d 258 ].) [11] Where [ 108 Cal.App.2d Supp. 900 ] an act is equivocal, evidence of the intent of the party is competent and relevant to establish its legal effect. (Brant v.

People v. Lashley

1 Cal. App. 4th 938 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 16, 1991

We agree with the reasoning of Screws and its progeny and find it clearly applicable to prosecutions under section 422.6. … The right to be free from violence, or the threat of it, is clearly within the purview of sections 422.6 and 422.7, is well established, and is plainly applicable to the facts of this case.

Heyen v. Safeway Inc.

216 Cal. App. 4th 795 · California Court of Appeal · May 23, 2013

that the employee qualifies for a statutory exemption. … The employee may qualify as an employee employed in the capacity of outside salesman if, and only if, the facts clearly indicate that he is employed for the purpose of making sales and that he is customarily and regularly

J.B.B. Investment Partners, Ltd. v. Fair

232 Cal. App. 4th 974 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 5, 2014

Co. (5th Cir. 2010) 622 F.3d 384, 391 [affirming that “[e]mails can qualify as the signed writings needed to form contracts” under Louisiana’s UETA]; Cloud Corp. v. … Gelco Corp., supra, 109 A.D.3d 244 is also not persuasive because it is clearly distinguishable from the present case.

People v. Seaton

146 Cal. App. 3d 67 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 16, 1983

The trial court found beyond a reasonable doubt defendant gave the statement voluntarily without promise of reward or immunity, either implied or express. … This case is clearly distinguishable. Here, the prosecutor did advise the witness not to refer to the dog.

Green v. Par Pools, Inc.

3 Cal. Rptr. 3d 844 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 22, 2003

The trial court clearly erred by finding that plaintiff had not presented a prima facie case of unequal pay for equal work. (Cherrey v. Thompson Steel Co., Inc. … Although her prior experience qualified her for the job, it was primarily office experience as an administrative assistant to the company president.

People v. Bunn

53 Cal. App. 4th 227 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 28, 1997

Zamora, supra, 18 Cal.3d at pp. 563-564), which ripens into a type of “immunity” upon expiration of the limitations period (see People v. Hoffman (1933) 132 Cal.App. 60, 63 [ 22 P.2d 229 ]; State v. … But disparate treatment of identical conduct is a problem inherent in the establishment and enforcement of statutes of limitation, as well as in legislative efforts to enlarge the limitations period.

San Bernardino County Department of Public Social Services v. Steven A.

15 Cal. App. 4th 754 · California Court of Appeal · May 6, 1993

Father had repeatedly failed to establish a secure home or demonstrate responsibility. … Still more clearly, a motion to reconsider also *769 falls within the authority of the temporary judge appointed to conduct the original hearing. (McCartney v.

City of Stockton v. Vote

76 Cal. App. 369 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 2, 1926

Testimony on the part of persons qualified to speak on such subjects was also proper to be laid before the jury. … The facts upon which this holding is predicated are not very clearly set forth in the opinion.

Krinsky v. Doe 6

72 Cal. Rptr. 3d 231 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 6, 2008

[Q]ur cases provide no basis for qualifying the level of First Amendment scrutiny that should be applied to this medium.” (Reno v. … The Supreme Court held that the defendants had a qualified privilege to protect the identity of confidential sources. {Id. at p. 276.)

People v. Franklin

57 Cal. App. 4th 68 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 15, 1997

that it prevail over section 17, subdivision (c), in determining whether a prior conviction qualifies as a strike. … A general discharge is granted when a defendant has not met the criteria for an honorable discharge but the record does not clearly warrant a dishonorable discharge. (Cal.

People v. Shapiro

37 Cal. App. 3d 1038 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 18, 1974

Amore, a Los Angeles Police Department officer, qualified as an expert regarding the manner in which marijuana and dangerous restricted drugs and narcotics are possessed and packaged for sale in Los Angeles County. … The warrant was not invalid because it was based upon an affidavit which established a future, rather than a present, probable cause to search.