Case law

Los Angeles County Department of Children's Services v. Ronald B.

18 Cal. App. 4th 719 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 1, 1993

‘The only finding I made today was that she was not able to qualify as a witness and, therefore, testify at all today. … Further, Kailee’s remarks to her aunt and pediatrician about her vaginal soreness were admissible under the physical sensation exception to the hearsay rule to establish her “present physical condition and her view of its

Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. State Dept. of Public Health

California Court of Appeal · Sep 23, 2025

Because section 1280.18 does not define or discuss “medical information,” we reject as unreasonable and contrary to the plain language of the statutory scheme the Department’s interpretation that the qualifier “consistent … The Department argues that, had the Legislature intended to establish a reasonableness standard, it could have done so clearly with explicit language in the statute.

People v. Aguilar

16 Cal. App. 3d 1001 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 22, 1971

The requirement under subdivision (c), that “The custodian or other qualified witness testifies as to its identity and the mode of its preparation,” was supplied by an officer who identified the writing and initials of Officer … Clearly, these statements, “Joe, it’s a red balloon he scored from Huero” (nickname for defendant); “He scored from Huero.

Tellez v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal · Oct 23, 2020

Both statutes are unambiguous in their plain language: One clearly prohibits diversion for defendants charged with DUI offenses, and the other just as clearly allows mental health diversion for any defendant who meets the … This history establishes that the Legislature wanted the existing bar on diversion for DUI offenses to take precedence.

People v. Valentine

113 Cal. Rptr. 2d 748 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 21, 2001

(Emphasis added) Appellant contends the prosecution must establish the acts here were accomplished by means of duress — or one of the other listed forms of *Page 1248 unlawful pressure — in order to convict him for forcible … Clearly the trial court here wanted to impose an additional fine, possibly pursuant to Penal Code section 288 . It is also clear the court had the authority to impose such a fine.

Title Insurance & Trust Co. v. Canfield

80 Cal. App. 2d 443 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 18, 1947

In short, the trustor established not merely a spendthrift trust but a discretionary trust as well. … There our Supreme Court held that the immunity enjoyed under the terms of this trust by an allocation of trust net income to a debtor beneficiary does not extend as against actions brought under Civil Code, section 859, by

Mendoza v. Bd. of Retirement of the Ventura County etc.

California Court of Appeal · Dec 29, 2025

Bakshian stated: “I have compared his 2015 MRI with the current MRI which clearly demonstrates progression of the discopathy at L5-S1. … Because substantial evidence supports these findings, appellant fails to establish that his writ petition was erroneously denied.

Jones v. Bank of San Jose

82 Cal. App. 696 · California Court of Appeal · May 4, 1927

Jones on April 23, 1926, and thereafter qualified as such administrator on May 19, 1926. … The facts of this case, as established by the evidence taken at the trial in the superior court, show that for some thirty years prior to his death W. 0.

People v. Johnson

8 Cal. App. 5th 111 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 2, 2017

Now if a person “enter[s] a commercial establishment with intent to commit larceny while that establishment is open during regular business hours” and takes or intends to take property with a value not exceeding $950, that … Under subdivision (a) of that statute, shoplifting is now “defined as entering a commercial establishment with intent to commit larceny while that establishment is open during regular business hours, where the value of the

Hobby Industrial Ass'n of America, Inc. v. Younger

101 Cal. App. 3d 358 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 24, 1980

Professions Code section 12602 to wholesale and retail distributors of nonfunctional slack filled packages, without regard to the limitations set forth in subdivision (b) of section 12602, whereas Hobby contended that the section clearly … We therefore hold that wholesalers or retailers are exempt from the prohibition of section 12606 in terms of the exclusion in section 12602, subdivision (b), and are also immune from actions under section 17200 et seq. of

Eckert v. BAY AREA CELLULAR TELEPHONE CO.

102 Cal. Rptr. 2d 880 · California Court of Appeal · May 16, 2001

In sustaining defendants' demurrer to the complaint, the trial court ruled the utilities were immune from Cartwright Act liability because of the PUC's exclusive jurisdiction over utility ratemaking. … "However," the court of appeal wrote, plaintiffs "disclaim any challenge to the PUC's established rates.

Howard Jarvis Taxpayers' Ass'n v. Fresno Metropolitan Projects Authority

40 Cal. App. 4th 1359 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 11, 1995

. *1363 Before us is an act of the Legislature designed and clearly intended to provide a cultural benefit to the community of Fresno. … The court stated: “The Legislature has power to establish offices in addition to those created by the Constitution itself.

Hancock v. California Newspaper Publishers' Ass'n

92 Cal. App. 2d 481 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 17, 1949

On March 25, 1935, without contest, the trial court made its order establishing it as a newspaper of general circulation. … Respondents contend that the legis *484 lative intent is clearly expressed by the preceding sections (Gov.

Delorey v. Board of Public Works

110 Cal. App. 362 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 12, 1930

It seems to us that this is arguing against the existence of a power clearly conferred, from the fact that it may be abused and perverted. … And even if they were not, we could not close our eyes to the existence of a power so clearly conferred simply because it might not be exercised in the way it should.

Marks v. Loral Corp.

57 Cal. App. 4th 30 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 25, 1997

“In business the question is not ‘is Jones qualified?’ but ‘can Jones do the job well enough to cover his wage?’ . . . There is no ‘qualified welder’ in the abstract.” … Again, any relevance here was clearly so attenuated to his ability to do a particular job within Loral’s system that any error in the exclusion was harmless.

Green v. Cortez

151 Cal. App. 3d 1068 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 18, 1984

All necessary elements of the privilege appear clearly from the face of the complaint, the incorporated exhibits (newspaper articles) and the stipulation relied upon in ruling on the demurrers and dismissing the action. … The case turned on settled case law doctrine establishing that “even though a public officer in the first instance establishes the existence of a privileged occasion for a defamatory publication, he may nevertheless be subject

People v. Rojas CA3

California Court of Appeal · Nov 15, 2024

In sum, “the limit on conduct credits in section 2933.1 . . . appl[ies] only where the current conviction, considered without reference to the three strikes law, qualifies as a ‘violent’ felony.” … The defendant expresses no remorse, and he is clearly a criminal who will continue this pattern of victimization if given the chance.”

George v. Double-D Foods, Inc.

155 Cal. App. 3d 36 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 30, 1984

The promise to permit decedent to purchase 10 percent of defendant’s stock at its book value on a certain date fails, in two fundamental respects, to qualify as an “agreed price.” … It is established that a deponent has a statutory right to make corrections (Paul v. Key System (1947) 80 Cal.App.2d 21, 27 [ 180 P.2d 940 ]; White v.

Raynolds v. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft

275 Cal. App. 2d 997 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 2, 1969

If plaintiffs could obtain service of process by service on the Secretary of State in 1966, they clearly could have done so before the expiration of the two-year period following the filing of the complaint. … Of course we recognize that implied indemnity founded either on contractual or equitable considerations is a well-established principle of California law. (Cahill Bros., Inc. v.

California Building Industry Ass'n. v. Governing Board of Newhall School District

206 Cal. App. 3d 212 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 29, 1988

To overcome the presumption the two acts must be irreconcilable, clearly repugnant, and so inconsistent that the two cannot have concurrent operation. … [ft] (b) As used in this section, ‘qualified special taxes’ means special taxes which apply uniformly to all taxpayers or all real property within the school district, except that ‘qualified special taxes’ may include special