Case law

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. 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.

Brown v. County of Los Angeles

203 Cal. App. 4th 1529 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 1, 2012

Finally, the Board of Psychology supports its interpretation of Business and Professions Code section 2910 by citing its own regulations. 7 It argues that section 1387 of title 16 of the California Code of Regulations “clearly … establishes that trainees can engage in direct mental health services” without a psychology license during their supervised professional experience.

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.

Paulus v. Bob Lynch Ford, Inc.

139 Cal. App. 4th 659 · California Court of Appeal · May 17, 2006

Paulus makes much of the fact that Lynch brought the UCL action against the City and related City entities, which parties were clearly immune from suit. (See, e.g., People for Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. v. … The abuse of process claim clearly appears to have been barred. (See Oren Royal Oaks Venture v.

People v. Singh

California Court of Appeal · Jul 14, 2022

e)(4), as amended by Stats. 2021, ch. 420, § 1, italics added.) 4  Without addressing the prior statutory language, we agree with the parties that section 1473.7 now clearly … The trial court found defendant did not qualify so it did not hold a hearing on the contents of the motion and defendant’s assertions within.

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

San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v. County of Merced

57 Cal. Rptr. 3d 663 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 11, 2007

Since established usage of the property may be considered to be part of the environmental setting (Fairview Neighbors v. … Compounding these errors, the baseline assumptions were not clearly identified.

Muddy Waters v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal · Apr 6, 2021

Such statements are clearly made “in connection with an issue of public interest.” (§ 425.16, subd. (e)(3).) … “Conspiracy is not an independent tort; it cannot create a duty or abrogate an immunity.

Sales v. City of Tustin CA4/3

California Court of Appeal · Sep 12, 2024

In an interlocutory appeal, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals determined the officers’ conduct did not violate the Fourth Amendment, and the officers were “entitled to qualified immunity, because they did not violate a clearly … established constitutional right.”

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.

People v. Flores

California Court of Appeal · Feb 3, 2020

It also established a procedure permitting qualified persons with murder convictions to petition to vacate their convictions and obtain resentencing if they were previously convicted of felony murder or murder under the … Section 1170.95 does not mention, and thus does not provide relief to, persons convicted of manslaughter, which, "while a lesser included offense of murder, is clearly a separate

Hodge v. Superior Court

51 Cal. Rptr. 3d 519 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 29, 2006

The case was tried to a jury, but a mistrial was declared after the jury was unable to reach a verdict on the question whether the class members qualified for the administrative exemption in Wage Order No. 4. … "[T]he Legislature has clearly stated its intent that the remedies and penalties under the UCL be cumulative to other remedies and penalties." ( Stop Youth Addiction, Inc. v.

Consumer Cause, Inc. v. Smilecare

110 Cal. Rptr. 2d 627 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 9, 2001

A chemical is “known to the state to cause . . . reproductive toxicity . . . if in the opinion of the state’s qualified experts it has been clearly shown through scientifically valid testing according to generally accepted … establishes an affirmative defense to that cause of action.”

Villarreal v. Gordon

California Court of Appeal · Jan 10, 2020

Proc., § 1021.5.)1 The trial court concluded that Villarreal had not established that the benefit the writ petition achieved was conferred on a sufficiently large enough class of persons to justify an attorney fee award under … Such report shall clearly identify the person convicted; describe the violation specifying the section of the statute, code, or ordinance violated; identify the court in which action was taken; indicate whether a plea of

People v. J. Clyde K.

192 Cal. App. 3d 710 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 12, 1987

According to the court, “It is true that section 940 does not on its face refer to use immunities. … Hill, supra, 66 Cal.2d 536 , the California Supreme Court established a standard to determine whether statements by the police were merely exhortations to tell the truth or promises of benefit or leniency.

Vasquez v. Dept. of Pesticide Regulation

California Court of Appeal · Sep 8, 2021

Similarly, the fact that Dow is the only registrant of 1,3-D for use in California does not establish that the township cap program is insufficiently general to qualify as a regulation. … As such, it clearly implements and makes specific the law the Department administers. III.

People v. Phillips

197 Cal. App. 2d 159 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 21, 1961

The Supreme Court stated: “It is well established that the scope of proper cross-examination may extend to the whole transaction of which the witness has testified, or it may be employed to elicit any matter which may tend … to overcome, qualify or explain the testimony given by a witness on his direct examination.”

Nelson v. Nelson

18 Cal. App. 602 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 2, 1912

It seems to us apparent that the addition of the qualifying word “wrongfully” is not required *605 in order to stamp with that characteristic the foregoing acts as thus detailed in the cross-complaint. … Wherever a fact is to be established by evidence, however, the rule is different. This is indicated clearly enough by section 632 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Van Hook v. Board of Retirement

148 Cal. App. 3d 714 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 4, 1983

Clearly “in its discretion” relates to “may award.” … Government Code Section 31536 does not require the Court to establish that the agency’s conduct has been arbitrary and capricious in order to make an award of attorneys fees. “9.