Case law

Smith v. Sinbad Development Co.

11 Cal. App. 253 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 3, 1909

Until the first annual meeting of the stockholders and until their successors are elected and qualified, the following named persons shall be the directors and officers: . . . and P. G. … The objection urged by appellant that the court by its language during the trial led him to assume that it was satisfied that the authority of Downey, as general manager, had been established, and that the findings of the

People v. Martinson

188 Cal. App. 3d 894 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 24, 1986

While section 25503 has as its sole purpose the creation of a private right of action to reimburse purchasers of unqualified securities, clearly the intent behind section 25530 was to create a governmental cause of action … “No rule of decision is better or more firmly established by authority, nor one resting upon a sounder basis of reason and propriety, than that a ruling or decision, itself correct in law, will not be disturbed on appeal

Kern County Department of Human Services v. Clinton H.

227 Cal. App. 3d 825 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 14, 1991

Fisher concluded the father: “is clearly a danger to others given his Narcissistic personality disorder and the specific dynamics of his self-absorption and inability to perceive the actual basic needs of his infant children … In other circumstances, the court may decide to call upon two qualified experts at the outset. C.

People v. Superior Court

28 Cal. App. 3d 600 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 9, 1972

Judge Corfman, the superior court judge before whom the motion was made, was better qualified to pass upon it than the municipal court which issued the search warrant in that having been the judge who heard the pretrial motions … Police Court, supra, 12 Cal.App. 582) for the proposition, that a summary proceeding in the case at bench was improper are clearly inapposite.

County of Sacramento v. Chambers

33 Cal. App. 142 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 1, 1917

The second section provides that the state board of health shall appoint a director, who shall be duly qualified and trained in public health work. … purpose other than that which pertains to the state, and that an appropriation by the legislature of money from the state treasury for a purpose wholly foreign to any of the essential functions of the state government would clearly

Bock v. County of Los Angeles

150 Cal. App. 3d 65 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 22, 1983

Health and Safety Code section 10254 requires the coroner, if he is unable to establish the identity of a body by visual means, fingerprints, or other identifying data, to have a qualified dentist perform a dental examination … Nevertheless, as the Supreme Court clearly stated in Williams v.

Crow Irvine 2 v. Winthrop Cal. Invetors Ltd. Partnership

128 Cal. Rptr. 2d 644 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 23, 2002

Clearly, Ruggles distinguishes between "objective facts" and "subjective good faith." … Virtually every case specifically links the concept of "good faith" with the qualifier "subjective," and does so within the very quotes relied upon by the Vryonis court.

Richardson v. Superior Court

138 Cal. App. 389 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 30, 1934

to the receiver the said property, as respondent court threatens to do, notwithstanding the fact that, as shown by the complaint and by the complaints in intervention in said action, the petitioner Richardson is the duly qualified … The controlling reasons which justify legislative exercise of the police power in relation to such institutions were very clearly stated in State Savings etc. Bank v. Anderson, 165 Cal. 437 [ 132 Pac. 755 , L. R.

Nichols v. Nelson

80 Cal. App. 590 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 10, 1927

This rule is qualified and explained, however, by the equally general rule that, except in the eases where the law fixes a standard of care, negligence is always relative and to be determined in view of all the circumstances … Ry., 150 Cal. 701 [ 89 Pac. 1093 ].) .In general, however, it is well for trial courts to adhere strictly to the use of well-established words.

People v. Miranda

192 Cal. App. 4th 398 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 31, 2011

that establishes a minimum period of confinement under a life sentence before eligibility for parole, whichever is greater. . . .’ … The italicized language referring to a term established by any other ‘section of law’ clearly includes the 15-year minimum term provided under section 190.” (Jenkins, at pp. 250-251; see also People v.

San Dieguito Union High School District v. Rosander

171 Cal. App. 3d 968 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 30, 1985

The county superintendent of schools ordered the withdrawal election to be held on Tuesday, March 5, 1985, among the “qualified electors residing within the boundaries of Cardiff School District.” … The ballots used at the election shall contain the words ‘Junior High School—Yes’ and ‘Junior High School—No’ with suitable spaces so that the voter may clearly indicate his choice in the matter.”

Rosener v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.

110 Cal. App. 3d 740 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 30, 1980

Further, some of appellant’s actions were based upon the advice—however desultory—of counsel, and while such advice does not immunize appellant from liability, it is one factor in the overall assessment of the nature of Sears … Clearly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding such expert testimony, which was only marginally relevant, and at best repetitive and unduly time consuming.

People v. Lange

California Court of Appeal · Dec 20, 2021

Lloyd (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 1425, 1428–1430 (Lloyd)) that established a categorical warrant exception for the hot pursuit of misdemeanor suspects. … Clearly, Lange v. California, supra, changed this California law when it rejected a categorical rule permitting warrantless entry in hot pursuit cases involving misdemeanor suspects. 3 (210 L.Ed.2d at p. 491.)

Coffey v. Way

126 Cal. App. 43 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 15, 1932

In that case the court said: “The great weight of authority is to the effect that where an officer is appointed for a fixed term, and it is provided that he may be removed during the term, ‘for cause’, without other qualifying … established by the great weight of authority that the power of removal cannot, except by clear statutory authority, be exercised without notice or hearing. ’ ’ Section 16 of article XX of the Constitution provides as follows

American Chemistry Council v. Office of Environmental Health etc.

California Court of Appeal · Jul 8, 2020

(a), (b)); or (4) upon review by the state’s qualified experts who, in their opinion, determine “the chemical has been clearly shown through scientifically valid testing according to generally accepted principles to cause … Again, the question before us is not whether the record establishes the Committee complied with requirements, but whether the evidence establishes the agency failed to comply. (Evid. Code, § 664; City of Sacramento v.

Professional Engineers in California Government v. Department of Transportation

198 Cal. App. 4th 17 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 8, 2011

authorized CalTrans to enter into an unlimited number of P3’s without legislative approval provided that any proposed P3 be released for public comment at a hearing and thereafter be submitted to the Legislature and the newly established … Under any standard definition, the record reveals that the Project is clearly supplemental to existing facilities and adds capacity. 3 For example, the southbound exit ramp from Doyle Drive to Veterans Boulevard will be widened

Wall v. Municipal Court

223 Cal. App. 3d 247 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 28, 1990

Legislative reaction to the opinion, however, generated a 1974 amendment to the California Constitution prohibiting any city or county, including those established by charter, from requiring its employees to be residents, … The amendment was intended to improve local government by increasing the pool of qualified applicants. (Cooperrider v. Civil Service Com. (1979) 97 Cal.App.3d 495, 501 [ 158 Cal.Rptr. 801 ].)

Parkman v. Superior Court

77 Cal. App. 321 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 2, 1926

Scarborough Company was not legally qualified to act as such trustee; that, although since such distribution a period of more than six months had elapsed, in violation of the provisions of the statute said trustee had failed … Sayre, supra, it clearly appearing that the order to which the consideration of the *328 court as herein directed is appealable, it follows that, irrespective of the other questions which are submitted by the parties to this

First State Insurance v. Superior Court

94 Cal. Rptr. 2d 104 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 23, 2000

Factual Background The action pending in respondent court (the Action) readily qualifies as complex litigation. In fact, it was so designated by respondent court no later than April 17, 1998. … We desire our decision to be clearly understood. We are not stating that the trial court may establish a procedure for deferred hearing of section 437c motions in every complex case. (Cf. Sentry Ins. Co. v.

People v. Williams

California Court of Appeal · Apr 9, 2020

an individual as such an offender; that public policy actually favors the majority's construction of section 3000.08, as our 23 Legislature clearly limited PRCS to low-risk … current— as suggested in the concurrence—] convictions for serious, violent, or sex offenses" should be realigned "to locally run community-based programs" (italics added)); that defendant committed crimes in 1984 that clearly