Case law

People v. Butterfield

177 Cal. App. 2d 553 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 29, 1960

his part which, if established, reasonably appeared to be inconsistent with such defense. … It may be directed to the eliciting of any matter which may tend to overcome or qualify the effect of the testimony given by him on his direct examination. (People v.

People v. Smith

206 Cal. App. 3d 340 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 30, 1988

.) *344 McVickers relied on In re Taylor (1944) 64 Cal.App.2d 47 [ 148 P.2d 143 ], where the defendant was convicted in North Carolina of two larceny counts, only one of which qualified as a felony in California. … We think Batista erred by speaking of going behind the record of conviction; Alfaro limited the record of conviction to the record of judgment, but Guerrero clearly does not.

Hawran v. Hixson

209 Cal. App. 4th 256 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 13, 2012

Reusser, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 1196 .) “ ‘ “The malice necessary to defeat a qualified privilege is ‘actual malice’ which is established by a showing that the publication was motivated by hatred or ill will towards the plaintiff … I clearly contemplated a specific, written document be the actual agreement, so that it was clear what, if anything, was being agreed to between the parties.”

People v. Cornejo

3 Cal. App. 5th 36 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 6, 2016

Additional Background Detective Jason Kirtlan interviewed Neal in the presence of Neal‘s attorney, who had secured an immunity agreement for Neal prior to the interview. … ‘s office, who agreed, and in this case gave him a letter of immunity.‖ During the prosecution‘s redirect examination, the prosecutor asked Detective Kirtlan: ―Is there anything other than what you‘ve already stated

People v. Deay

194 Cal. App. 3d 280 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 20, 1987

The phrase “charges brought and tried separately” has a well established and long understood meaning. … It is well established that the issues decided in a case are those presented.

Harms v. Reed

73 Cal. App. 2d 853 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 8, 1946

He helped with a termite job that was necessary to qualify for the FHA loan. He directed the work of three other boys, and me. “The Coubt: Is that all? A. Also he-rented the property and collected the rents. … The record presents a situation where an appellate tribunal, under long established and recognized rules, is without power to substitute its judgment for that of the trier of facts.

People v. Harvey

151 Cal. App. 3d 660 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 2, 1984

Heifer believed she was a highly qualified psychiatrist. Dr. White’s first contact with defendant occurred on January 11, 1980, two days after the killing. Dr. … In any event the record clearly states that the attorney did not discuss the defense with his client at all.

People v. McCowan

182 Cal. App. 3d 1 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 5, 1986

The trial judge found that “ ‘under the right-wrong prong of section 25(b), the defendant would qualify as legally insane; but under the other prong, he clearly does not.’” (Ibid.) … Concluding that section 25, subdivision (b), requires proof of both prongs to establish insanity, he found “defendant had not established that he was legally insane.” (Ibid.)

Hernandez v. City of Stockton

California Court of Appeal · Apr 28, 2023

II The Government Claims Act The Government Claims Act was enacted in 1963 to provide a “comprehensive statutory scheme governing the liabilities and immunities of public entities and … A plaintiff’s allegations, and ultimately the evidence, must establish a physical deficiency in the property itself. [Citations.]

Stuart v. Vaughan

207 Cal. App. 4th 1055 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 18, 2012

It first determined the Stuarts did not qualify for guardianship under the “stable placement” provisions of Family Code section 3041, subdivision (c). … The third step, applying the law to the facts, is reviewed in this circumstance under the deferential clearly erroneous standard of review. (Guardianship of L.V., supra, 136 Cal.App.4th at p. 488 .)

Bakersfield Elementary Teachers Ass'n v. Bakersfield City School District

52 Cal. Rptr. 3d 486 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 19, 2006

Thus, the District asserts: “Under the trial court’s construction [of the Code], a school district would be required to lay off fully qualified teachers and retain teachers [with more seniority] who are not fiilly qualified … If a school district hires a certificated person as a temporary employee, the written statement shall clearly indicate the temporary nature of the employment and the length of time for which the person is being employed.

Jessen v. Mentor Corp.

158 Cal. App. 4th 1480 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 16, 2008

establishing a triable issue of material fact refuting the defense]; Consumer Cause, Inc. v. … “Because the FDA is the federal agency to which Congress has delegated its authority to implement the provisions of the [MDA], the agency is uniquely qualified to determine whether a particular form of state law ‘stands as

McMann v. Wadler

189 Cal. App. 2d 124 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 14, 1961

Appellant Western Farms, Inc., is engaged in the dairy industry and qualifies for membership in the Western Dairymen’s Association. Appellant Herman Wadler was the manager of Western Farms, Inc. … It clearly appears from the record that Wadler signed the application for membership in Western Dairymen’s Association as “Directing Manager” of Western Farms, Inc.

People v. Lopez

California Court of Appeal · Aug 4, 2022

as clearly shown.” … Currently charged offenses no longer qualify (id., subd.

Iverson v. Atlas Pacific Engineering

143 Cal. App. 3d 219 · California Court of Appeal · May 24, 1983

It is clearly barred by Labor Code sections 3600 and 3601. [2] Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to the Labor Code. … to be one through whom the employer may be charged under Section 4553; (2) such act of such other employee shall be established to have been the proximate cause of the injury or death; and (3) such act is established to

Los Angeles Equestrian Center, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles

17 Cal. App. 4th 432 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 22, 1993

Immunity will prevail where the governmental misrepresentation interfered with either a commercial or a financial interest. [Citation.] … The facts herein do not establish the City invaded or appropriated any property right of appellants.

Johnson v. Stoneridge Creek Pleasanton CCRC

California Court of Appeal · Aug 19, 2025

Bank of America (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d 819, 869.) 9 qualified as “projected costs,” as the Department found. … To the extent Stoneridge Creek contends that section 1788(a)(22)(B) immunizes it from liability for retaliation, we reject the argument.

People v. Neustice

24 Cal. App. 3d 178 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 20, 1972

This contention is premised upon the claim his diminished mental capacity was established by the opinions of his experts which were not rebutted. … Contrary to defendant’s contention, the court’s comment did not cast a doubt on whether he clearly and voluntarily withdrew his plea.

People v. D.W.

236 Cal. App. 4th 313 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 28, 2015

However, that threat is not relevant to our assessment of whether there was a qualifying injury. … Dutra‘s testimony about the irritation in his eye is insufficient by itself to establish that he suffered a qualifying injury under section 243, subdivision (c).

Mongoose Capital v. Radin CA1/2

California Court of Appeal · Dec 13, 2013

As applied to this case, Radin’s independent and non-derivative liability is clearly established. … This finding clearly treats Cresson and Radin as both involved in the modification. Insofar as this act was wrongful, it would be sufficient to establish Cresson and Radin as joint tortfeasors.