Case law

Hay v. McDonald

21 Cal. App. 204 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 13, 1913

being made on behalf of a party other than he whose signature is attached thereto, it will not be deemed to be the contract of another party, even though there may appear after the appended signature of the individual, qualifying … quite clearly that the defendant in his personal capacity obligated himself to see that plaintiff was paid the one thousand dollars mentioned in the writing.

Cambridge Co. v. City of Elsinore

57 Cal. App. 245 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 3, 1922

These cases enunciate the well-established rule that where one who agrees to perform services acts with a bona fide intention of fulfilling his contract, but fails strictly to do all that he has agreed to, he may, nevertheless … It clearly, unambiguously, and with certainty speaks for itself.

People v. Melchor P.

10 Cal. App. 4th 788 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 27, 1992

“It is also a rule of statutory construction that if there exists an uncertainty or ambiguity in a statute, qualifying words, phrases or clauses are construed as referring to the words, phrases and clauses immediately preceding … Additionally, the legislative history of the current version of section 13202.5 establishes a clear intent to treat those with licenses and those without, and those who were driving at the time they committed the offense

People v. Learnard

California Court of Appeal · Oct 28, 2016

Instead, the video shows a clearly agitated individual who appears to be angry and upset about his situation. Appellant is cooperative as police remove his belt and he enters the booking cell. … The trial court determined the prior assault conviction qualified as a strike.

Jessen v. Mentor Corp.

71 Cal. Rptr. 3d 714 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 6, 2008

evidence establishing a triable issue of material fact refuting the defense]; Consumer Cause, Inc. v. … "Because the FDA is the federal agency to which Congress has delegated its authority to implement the provisions of the [MDA], the agency is uniquely qualified to determine whether a particular form of state law stands as

Sales v. Tustin

California Court of Appeal · Jun 28, 2021

The district court denied the City’s motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity under federal law. (Sales v. City of Tustin (9th Cir. 2016) 649 Fed. Appx. 615, 616.) … As Artis explained, “When [federal] district courts dismiss all claims independently qualifying for the exercise of federal jurisdiction, they ordinarily dismiss as well all related state claims.”

Baxter Healthcare Corp. v. Denton

15 Cal. Rptr. 3d 430 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 1, 2004

In addition, a chemical must be listed if (1) the state’s qualified experts are of the opinion that scientifically valid testing has clearly shown that the chemical causes cancer or reproductive toxicity; (2) a body considered … Yet the warning exemption does not similarly require it to be clearly shown that exposure to the chemical poses no significant risk of causing cancer. (§ 25249.10, subd. (c).)

Leonard v. Board of Education

36 Cal. App. 2d 595 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 17, 1940

Benedict are the duly appointed, elected, qualified and acting commissioners and members of the Board of Education of the San Francisco Unified School District of the State of California and as such constitute the Board of … She clearly waived the service of the written notice mentioned in said statute. The judgment appealed from is affirmed. Nourse, P. J., and Spence, J., concurred.

Addison v. Department of Motor Vehicles

69 Cal. App. 3d 486 · California Court of Appeal · May 4, 1977

A place of business of an automobile dismantler which qualified as an ‘established place of business’ before the enactment of amendments to this section at the 1970 Regular Session of the Legislature shall be deemed to be … It cannot be invoked where the grant of express powers clearly excludes the exercise of others, or where the claimed power is incompatible with, or outside the scope of, the express power.

People v. Hernandez

California Court of Appeal · Aug 1, 2019

First, defendant’s offense does qualify as 6 shoplifting, now defined as “entering a commercial establishment with intent to commit larceny while that establishment is open … At the hearing on defendant’s petition, the trial court found that “clearly the intent here is to commit the robbery that was dismissed.

People v. Szymanski

135 Cal. Rptr. 2d 691 · California Court of Appeal · May 30, 2003

We agree with Szymanski that he was denied the right to have a trial before a qualified jury. … It is well established, “Denial of an appropriate and timely challenge for cause may result in an unqualified juror being forced on the defendant in violation of constitutional and statutory rights.

Marten v. Thies

99 Cal. App. 3d 161 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 29, 1979

In view of this history, the director’s belief that the wife might flee with the child was clearly reasonable. … The wife fails to state in what respect an attorney is better qualified to communicate with, and represent the interests of an infant regarding her adoptive placement than the agency established for that purpose, and designated

Hutchason v. Marks

54 Cal. App. 2d 113 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 20, 1942

alternative demand is not predicated on an alternative and legal cause of action, but is simply for alternative relief based on the equitable theory of rescission and presents a case which appears to be similar to that which is clearly … Chief Justice Gibson says, “It is now established in this state, however, that if a complaint states two complete rights of action, one legal and one equitable, a jury trial may be obtained upon the issues raised by the legal

Maranatha Corrections, LLC v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation

70 Cal. Rptr. 3d 614 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 11, 2008

Second, if the court so finds, it then decides whether the plaintiff has established a probability of prevailing on the merits of the claim. (Navellier v. … We shall conclude these claims qualify for SLAPP treatment under section 425.16(e)(2) and (3). A.

Remondino v. Remondino

41 Cal. App. 2d 208 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 18, 1940

This fact established that the $50,000 was a “debt” of a widely different nature from that to support his wife and it was clearly dischargeable in bankruptcy. … It was clearly then within the jurisdiction of the court to confirm the contract upon plaintiff’s request.

Wilson v. Wilson

78 Cal. App. 3d 226 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 3, 1978

In this particular case the ruling of the trial judge in the murder case was not the exclusion of “trustworthy” evidence or proof positive or evidence which clearly and unerringly and without question established guilt of … Rather it was the nonadmission of a remark which did not qualify as a dying declaration. It did not have the standards needed to be classed as highly trustworthy.

People v. Alvarez

268 Cal. App. 2d 297 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 18, 1968

. *300 Unlike the Johnson ease, supra, where prior inconsistent statements of the prosecuting witnesses before the grand jury were the sole evidence to establish the acts leading to a conviction of incest, the evidence of … No promise of immunity can fairly be implied here. Moreover, a promise of immunity must be expressed or clearly implied, and it must be the motivating cause of the confession. (People v.

Ochoa v. Anaheim City School District

11 Cal. App. 5th 209 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 28, 2017

The evidence clearly establishes that Palm Lane failed to make adequate yearly progress.” … Palm Lane Elementary School thus qualified as a subject school as of January 2015.

Nassiri v. City of Lafayette

California Court of Appeal · Jul 18, 2024

The City identifies “misstatements and errors” in SWAPE’s analysis, and claims that given these misstatements, the evidence presented by SWAPE is “clearly inaccurate or erroneous” and is therefore not substantial evidence … Alternatively, the party can “establish an unusual circumstance with evidence that the project will have a significant environmental effect,” because such evidence, “if convincing, necessarily also establishes ‘a reasonable

People v. Stewart

89 Cal. App. 3d 992 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 29, 1979

Appellant clearly understood and agreed to his attorney’s recommendation in entering the proper plea. … Those instructions included: “You are instructed that predictions of dangerous behavior, no matter who makes them, are incredibly inaccurate, and there is a growing consensus that psychiatrists are not uniquely qualified