Case law

Mosesian v. Pennwalt Corp.

191 Cal. App. 3d 851 · California Court of Appeal · May 4, 1987

Trial courts have considerable latitude in qualifying experts. The record in the instant action clearly reveals that Dr. … The trial court directed the plaintiff to produce the outside expert for voir dire outside the jury’s presence to establish the foundational facts supporting the test calculations.

Wilens v. TD Waterhouse Group, Inc.

15 Cal. Rptr. 3d 271 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 19, 2003

Arguably, the webBroker termination provision qualifies. … He claims the unconscionable provision is unlawful under the CLRA and thus qualifies for action under the UCL.

People v. Ausbie

232 Cal. App. 2d 724 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 9, 1965

It was stipulated by all counsel that William King was deemed to have been called, sworn and testified that he is a qualified forensic chemist; that he made an examination of the two capsules received in evidence; that the … The prosecution clearly established that Officer Spelman had probable cause to arrest defendant.

Hilltop Group, Inc. v. County of San Diego

California Court of Appeal · Feb 16, 2024

To balance its goals and guide future development, the GPU established land use categories and a corresponding land use map. … However, “ ‘ “[s]ubstantial evidence is not argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence that is clearly inaccurate or erroneous, or evidence of social or economic impacts that do not contribute to

People v. Neely

228 Cal. App. 2d 16 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 18, 1964

The evident purpose of the cross-examination was to probe the state of mind of the prosecutrix, in the hope of establishing the falsity of her past complaints of rape, and the likelihood that the charge against appellant … This evidence clearly points to appellant’s guilt. We cannot say that, had the errors respecting the admission of evidence not occurred, a result more favorable to appellant would have been probable.

Bernardo v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America

9 Cal. Rptr. 3d 197 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 28, 2004

speech, noting that the informational pamphlets were “conceded to be advertisements” (ibid.), the high court explained that “the fact that [the manufacturer] ha[d] an economic motivation for mailing the pamphlets would clearly … [f] The exclusion of public prosecutors from the anti-SLAPP motion procedure is consistent with the rationale of these immunity statutes.

Li v. City of Hayward CA1/2

California Court of Appeal · Mar 26, 2025

The order explained that Li “will need to clearly identify the causes of action in any amended complaint and the alleged facts that support those causes of action,” and she will “also need to allege facts that establish liability … However, the First Amended Complaint still fails to allege facts to establish liability outside of governmental immunity based on discretional decisions.”

People v. Mathews

205 Cal. App. 543 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 10, 1962

The witness, Robert Druley, a qualified chemist, examined each of the two packages and found that the substance contained therein was marijuana. … A denial of representation is not established unless the record shows that counsel’s handling of the case was so incompetent that it was the duty of the court to observe and correct it. (See People v.

Wilson v. County of Napa

9 Cal. App. 5th 178 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 28, 2017

After initially certifying that the initiative qualified for placement on the ballot, the registrar rejected the petition based on advice from county counsel that the measure did not comply with the full text requirement … Proponents’ principal argument is that “the initiative on its face clearly does not enact best management practices, either expressly or otherwise.”

Caressa Camille, Inc. v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board

121 Cal. Rptr. 2d 758 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 28, 2002

Such person is clearly engaged in the practice of law in a representative capacity.” … As already discussed, courts of record are entitled to expect to be aided in resolution of contested issues by presentation of causes through qualified professionals rather than a layperson.

People v. Whiteside CA2/1

California Court of Appeal · Mar 24, 2026

At the hearing to determine whether appellant had established a prima facie showing for relief, the trial court summarily denied the petition. … She also clearly admits to having a firearm and shooting somebody in the face; does she not? As well as other actions.

McFadden v. Borden

28 Cal. App. 471 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 1, 1915

The plaintiff, alleging that he is and at all times during the year 1913 has been the duly qualified and acting deputy assessor of Madera County, complains that, on the seventh day of July, 1913, he presented to the defendant … As shown, there was by said act no provision made for a deputy or other assistant to said officer, and clearly it was contemplated and, indeed, intended by the legislature that the person elected to the office of assessor

Chase Chemical Co. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.

159 Cal. App. 3d 229 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 17, 1984

Clearly, then, it cannot sue the employer’s insurance carrier for the same conduct.” … It is a well established principle of jurisprudence, that when the reason for a rule does not apply, the rule itself should not apply.

Gaillard v. Natomas Co.

173 Cal. App. 3d 410 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 18, 1985

The statute herein clearly states that the plaintiff must be a shareholder “at the time” of the alleged wrongdoing. … Respondents contend that the status of Gaillard is controlled by the statement in Mueller that “one who is not a stockholder in a savings and loan association is not qualified to bring a derivative action on behalf of such

Estate of Stober

108 Cal. App. 3d 591 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 25, 1980

The Jarecki trust was established in a Pennsylvania probate proceeding. … Each was clearly intended to be lifetime income beneficiaries.

People v. Dain

California Court of Appeal · Oct 15, 2025

This change in the interpretation of section 186.22(a) meant that defendant’s convictions, by themselves, were inconclusive as to whether they qualified as strikes. (Strike, at p. 150.) … (See Carmony, supra, 33 Cal.4th at pp. 376–377 [the burden is on the appellant to clearly establish the sentencing decision was irrational or arbitrary].)

Di Lorenzo v. City of Pacific Grove

260 Cal. App. 2d 68 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 14, 1968

quote Chatham, ‘may bid defiance to all the forces of the crown, ’ and a similar right is guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, whence the right of the dispenser of printed matter to immunity … Struthers, supra, pp. 146-147 [87 L.Ed. p. 1319], comments upon the right to transmit information as follows: “Freedom to distribute information to every citizen wherever he desires to receive it is so clearly vital to the

Lombardi v. Citizens National Trust & Savings Bank of Los Angeles

137 Cal. App. 2d 206 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 22, 1955

Applying these principles to the proceeding at hand, it is clear plaintiff received the decision to which he was entitled, namely, a nonsuit, since he did not establish any element of his case. … Farrar, 41 Cal.App. 452 [ 182 P. 989 ]) and “within reasonable limits” by proper questions “to clearly bring out the facts so that the important functions of his office may be fairly and justly performed” (Estate of Dupont

People v. Duran

119 Cal. Rptr. 2d 272 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 30, 2002

offered to prove not only the fact of a conviction, but the commission of the underlying offense. 5 *1462 Evidence Code section 452.5 does not define the term “official record of conviction,” but a certified minute order clearly … The minute order established the date and nature of Aldaco’s conviction.

San Diego County Department of Social Services v. Forsythe

192 Cal. App. 3d 1406 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 10, 1987

admission of business record evidence of employment, foundationally supported by affidavit, held violative of the Sixth Amendment where defendant was charged with perjury for falsely stating his experience and training when qualified … If, however, we are wrong in reaching this conclusion, Forsythe may seek a writ of habeas corpus to explicate more clearly and fully the facts surrounding the trial court’s address to the proposed conservatees and Forsythe