Case law

People v. Adames

54 Cal. App. 4th 198 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 14, 1997

In order to establish the court’s exercise of discretion violated his or her right of confrontation under the Sixth Amendment of the federal Constitution, the defendant must establish that “he [or she] was prohibited from … The Legislature’s intent clearly is to require AIDS testing of anyone who has committed “[l]ewd or lascivious acts with a child in violation of Section 288[.]”

In re I.S. CA4/3

California Court of Appeal · Apr 29, 2021

Testimonial Immunity for I.S.’s Father I.S. next claims the juvenile court erred in denying his request to order the prosecutor to grant use immunity to I.S.’s father for his “clearly exculpatory and essential … clearly exculpatory].)

Johnson v. San Diego Unified Port Dist. CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · Jan 6, 2014

5  In opposition, plaintiffs argued that Krueper's opinions were relevant and the statutory immunities cited by the Port are affirmative defenses to be established at trial and are not proper grounds for excluding … With respect to the alleged failure to provide other types of official traffic signs, section 830.8 applies and provides a qualified immunity. 14  The court found section

W. T. Grant Co. v. Superior Court

23 Cal. App. 3d 284 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 4, 1972

Rptr. 64 ].) (1b) Second, Berry's testimony reporting Hill's statement qualified as an exception to the hearsay rule in that it set forth what amounted to an admission by an agent made while acting within the scope of his … (Where the error in admission of evidence is serious, as it clearly was at bench, even a total failure to object is excusable. (Witkin, Cal. Evidence (2d ed. 1966) p. 1195.)

People v. Hicks

California Court of Appeal · Dec 23, 2015

The trial court errs if “‘the evidence shows that a witness clearly lacks qualification as an expert and the judge has held the witness to be qualified as an expert witness.’ [Citation.]” (People v. … was not qualified to testify.

People v. Alcantar CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · Mar 8, 2021

The district court granted the parole officer’s motion for summary judgment, finding he had violated Inouye’s First Amendment rights but had qualified immunity. … Because the instant matter does not concern qualified immunity, we omit any discussion of this portion of Inouye. 7 attendance at the subject A.A. meeting “involved a substantial religious

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.”

Abex Corp. v. Superior Court

209 Cal. App. 3d 755 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 13, 1989

This purpose will be defeated if appellate courts entertain petitions for prerogative writs by which a review of the orders of trial courts in discovery proceedings are sought and which do not clearly demonstrate an abuse … for the biopsy arguing that (1) the examination would require intrusive and potentially painful removal of his body tissues, (2) the number of examinations sought is oppressive and (3) since it is plaintiff’s burden to establish

Curry v. SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN BERNARDINO CTY.

20 Cal. App. 4th 180 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 18, 1993

However, it did establish a procedure and a rule by which multiple tortfeasors could establish the parties’ relative percentages of fault, and by which a judgment debtor who paid more than his share could recover from joint … First, the modem trend of the law clearly favors the equitable sharing of losses among tortfeasors.

Surabian v. Lorenz

229 Cal. App. 2d 462 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 31, 1964

One witness, perhaps the best qualified of all who testified on the subject, is a practicing dentist and a member of the teaching staff of the University of California in the Department of Oral Surgery, as well as a guest … We are not embarrassed by Gerhardt , however, since the facts of that ease are clearly distinguishable from the case at bench.

Snyder v. City of South Pasadena

53 Cal. App. 3d 1051 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 23, 1975

Streets and Highways Code section 186.3 requires a city to establish a select system of streets in order to qualify for highway users tax funds. … It merely speculates about unstated possible unforeseen factors, which are not even clearly shown.to be environmental factors.

Barns v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

216 Cal. App. 3d 524 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 13, 1989

At most it established a likelihood that Barns would be unable to resume his job as puller. It did not establish that he was permanently unable to perform that job. … It cannot provide a basis for immunizing the employer’s later discriminatory conduct.

Lawatch v. Lawatch

200 Cal. App. 2d 513 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 20, 1962

file a notice of motion in this court seeking an order denying subrogation of the sum proposed to be borrowed or such part thereof as defendant deems excessive, and on hearing the motion the burden shall be on defendant to establish … She was awarded at one instant a qualified lien on plaintiff’s property.

Hardy v. Stumpf

37 Cal. App. 3d 958 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 15, 1974

Clearly, the same argument would be made regarding the Smith case, a case decided too recently to appear in the briefs, for that was decided by a federal district court. … This is clearly an enunciation of an improper standard and was not repeated by the reviewing court in Castro v. Beecher, 459 F.2d 725, 734 .

In Re Marriage of Biddle

52 Cal. App. 4th 396 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 29, 1997

Therefore in his view he has no property interest in the cause of action that would qualify it for division as community property. The former Mrs. … If these contingencies are satisfied, the plaintiff’s entitlement to a cash recovery is, to all intents and purposes, established.

Taylor v. Western States Land & Mortgage Co.

77 Cal. App. 2d 869 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 3, 1947

The language of the statute clearly indicates a meaning that an account cannot be classified as “remaining unclaimed” when a valid and bona fide claim is made thereto. In Security Savings Bank v. … Appellant’s contention that her “default judgment operates on res judicata and is immune from collateral attack and as long as a default stands it is the court’s duty to enter another judgment on it” is devoid of merit.

R.S. v. Orange County Social Services Agency CA4/3

California Court of Appeal · Sep 20, 2024

The Johnson court set forth a two-part test to establish whether discretionary immunity applies. First, the agency must show the act or omission is discretionary. … Scott differs from our case because the negligent act in that case—failure to make required monthly home visits—clearly falls within the category of non-immune ministerial acts. 2.

Hurtado v. Statewide Home Loan Co.

167 Cal. App. 3d 1019 · California Court of Appeal · May 6, 1985

Appellate decisions should furnish firm, clearly defined, objective guidelines for trial court application. … It is well established that where the facts are largely undisputed, 5 the trial judge is in no better position than the appellate court to decide the issues in the case. (Ferris v.

McFarlin v. Benny Y.

101 Cal. App. 3d 178 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 21, 1980

Clearly, application of Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 is a benefit to the juvenile and one in accord with the policy of the United States. … Furthermore, in title IV-B of the Social Security Act ( 42 U.S.C. §§ 620-626 ), Congress has authorized grants to the states for establishing, extending and strengthening “child welfare services” (§§ 620, 621).

County of San Diego v. GUY C.

30 Cal. App. 4th 1325 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 14, 1994

The County reasons as follows: Under former section 4720.1, subdivision (a)(2), the Legislature clearly stated its intent that the rules established by the Judicial Council to set guidelines for child support should be adhered … The court thus found that these discretionary factors did not qualify as exceptional circumstances which justify departure from the guidelines as to mandatory mínimums. (Former §§ 4720, subd. (e), 4725.)