Case law

Estate of Garey

214 Cal. App. 2d 39 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 14, 1963

From cases following the rationale of the Darling case, the rule became established that an adopted child inherited from, but not through, his adoptive parents." … Second, to deny the adopted child the right to qualify as the pretermitted heir of his adoptive grandparent would be to deny him entirely the right to qualify as the pretermitted heir of either his natural or adoptive grandparent

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.

Amluxen v. Regents of University of California

53 Cal. App. 3d 27 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 29, 1975

This evidence established that appellant was not qualified in hematology or nuclear medicine, as she herself admitted. *37 Appellant’s contention that the “special skills” exception was applied is without merit as is her … Counsel for appellant makes the statement in his brief that the court’s adoption of “clearly one-sided” findings of fact and conclusions of law “was a vindictive act against counsel for appellant which caused substantial

People v. Leland D.

223 Cal. App. 3d 251 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 28, 1990

At the adjudication hearing, Officer Dwayne Freeman of the Fresno Police Department youth gang task force was qualified as an expert on criminal street gang activity. … Clearly, Officer Freeman’s “expert testimony” based on nonspecific hearsay and arrest information does not constitute substantial evidence that the Fink White Deuces are a criminal street gang as defined by statute.

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

Schwartz v. City of Dana Point CA4/3

California Court of Appeal · Oct 25, 2013

(b)) to “establish and maintain a voluntary program for the issuance of identification cards to qualified patients . . . .” (§ 11362.71, subd. (a)(1).) Subject to the requirements of the MMP (§ 11362.765, subd. … (a)), the Legislature provided immunity to “[a]ny individual who provides assistance to a qualified patient . . . or designated primary caregiver” (§ 11362.765, subd.

Anderson v. Superior Court

68 Cal. App. 4th 1240 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 30, 1998

For example, she could have identified those children who would qualify for foster care payments under Land . … Real party argues that the letter ignores alternate means by which a child can establish linkage, and it limits the time a child can establish linkage to the month the juvenile petition is filed.

People v. Gaxiola CA5

California Court of Appeal · Jun 12, 2025

“Senate Bill 1437 also [added former section 1170.95, now section 1172.6, which] established a procedure permitting certain qualifying persons who were previously convicted of felony murder or murder under the natural and … Use Immunity Defendant contends the admission of his statements to the parole board violated his state and federal due process rights under the use immunity doctrine. We disagree.

Kern County Farm Bureau v. County of Kern

19 Cal. App. 4th 1416 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 29, 1993

Case law clearly permits a local government to seek to justify a revenue device under alternative classifications, and the county’s effort to do so in this case does not undermine the force of its arguments. II. … Not only is the control of illegal dumping clearly within the police power, but common experience tells us that much of the illegal waste is dumped onto rural and agricultural lands.

People v. Conrad

31 Cal. App. 3d 308 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 26, 1973

As Officer Frost himself testified, at that point defendant clearly was not in custody. He was free to leave. … counsel was correct, as the life sentence returned by the jury established.

Central National Insurance v. California Insurance Guarantee

165 Cal. App. 3d 453 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 22, 1985

For equitable estoppel to lie, five elements must be established. … This is proper inasmuch as Central National at all times qualified as “other insurance” as set forth in section 1063.1, subdivision (c)(7)(a) and could not step into the shoes of the insured by application of section 1063.1

Evans v. Ohanesian

39 Cal. App. 3d 121 · California Court of Appeal · May 14, 1974

.) *128 To qualify a witness as a medical expert, it must be shown that the witness (1) has the required professional knowledge, learning and skill of the subject under inquiry sufficient to qualify him to speak with authority … Since this clearly was not the case in the action at bar, the court erred in granting the nonsuit. The judgment of nonsuit is reversed. Gabbert, Acting P. J., and Kaufman, J., concurred.

Estate of Silverman

249 Cal. App. 2d 180 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 6, 1967

We think we are not authorized to declare such property or money exempt, except as she may be able to establish the same exemptions to which the statute entitles any execution debtor under like circumstances." … Appellant relies upon Holmes, supra, and excerpts language from that case which is clearly dicta as applied to the facts at bench.

Regina v. State of California

California Court of Appeal · Mar 17, 2023

According to Regina, “[e]ven though [the Department] had in its possession clear evidence that Plaintiff was qualified to obtain a firearm, it issued ‘undetermined eligibility’ letters on December 12, 2020 and after and so … and the doctrine of sovereign immunity]).

People v. McKean

76 Cal. App. 114 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 31, 1925

W. 383 ], the statute provided: “If any person shall open or establish, as owner or otherwise, any lottery or game of chance in this state,” etc. … In this state the rule is given express statutory recognition, it being declared in section 3534 of the Civil Code that “Particular expressions qualify those which are general.”

Davidow v. Griswold

23 Cal. App. 188 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 7, 1913

We think the principles covering the case are clearly stated in San Leandro v. Le Breton, 72 Cal. 170 , [ 13 Pac. 405 ], and Archer v. Salinas City, 93 Cal. 43 , [16 L. R. A. 145, 28 Pac. 839 ]. … If the dedication is complete by his act, whether express or implied, it is thereafter irrevocable by him, and the effect of such dedication cannot be qualified by any act or declaration thereafter made on his part.

DiCarlo v. Co. of Monterey

California Court of Appeal · Jun 5, 2017

Code, § 20000 et seq.) establishes PERS, a retirement system for employees of the state and participating local public agencies. … “Moreover, ‘[g]reat weight should be given to the administrative interpretation of the Board of Retirement unless clearly erroneous. [Citations.]’ [Citations.]” (Wheeler v.

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. Narvaez

128 Cal. Rptr. 2d 899 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 31, 2002

He testified he had been a professional gambler in New York, and he accompanied his son to Las Vegas to teach him how to deceive the casino into believing he was losing more money than he actually was losing to qualify for … It is established that “[t]he possession of recently stolen property is sufficient to support corroboration for an accomplice’s testimony.” (People v.

Dabbs v. Cardiopulmonary Management Services

188 Cal. App. 3d 1437 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 28, 1987

Shapiro is clearly inapposite. Here, plaintiff alleged she was discharged in retaliation for her protest of hospital working conditions which might have an adverse effect on the health and safety of patients. … We find support for our decision in general societal concerns for qualified patient care.