Case law

People v. Burns CA5

California Court of Appeal · Oct 25, 2021

Longwith’s review of defendant’s immunized statements and fruits thereof did not result in the use of his immunized statements against him during trial. … Under this provision, certain defendants suffering from qualifying mental disorders may be eligible for pretrial diversion (§ 1001.36, subd.

DaSilveira v. Westphalia Separator Co.

248 Cal. App. 2d 789 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 27, 1967

Westphalia has never made any contracts with persons in California nor has it made any contracts to be performed in California; it has never qualified to do business in California, has never paid taxes in California, and … Under these circumstances, the court held that the “minimum contact” had been established.

People v. One 1941 Buick 8-Four-Door Sedan, Engine No. 54135130

63 Cal. App. 2d 661 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 31, 1944

It has been definitely established that a taxicab business of carrying passengers for hire constitutes a common carrier. (Civ. Code, §2168; Bezera v. … Courts are powerless to insert into a statute qualifying provisions not contained in the language used, to carry out an assumed legislative intent. (Seaboard Acceptance Corporation v.

People v. Raygosa CA2/4

California Court of Appeal · Dec 16, 2014

Defendant was not immune from prosecution. … He contends that he presented evidence that “clearly qualified” him for immunity from prosecution as provided in the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 (“CUA”) and the Medical Marijuana Program Act (“MMPA”) and therefore the charges

People v. Coyer

142 Cal. App. 3d 839 · California Court of Appeal · May 10, 1983

Nonetheless, an individual subject to criminal or quasi-criminal proceedings of any sort may perceive all these entities as forming a single law enforcement establishment. … Even in civil appeals “factfinding under rule 23 is an extraordinary procedure to be used sparingly and only in a case clearly calling for it . . . .” (Jacobs v.

People v. Super. Ct.

California Court of Appeal · Jan 6, 2023

Based on the plain text of the statute, the school here qualifies because it provides instruction in the specified grades. … Jonathan L. determined based on legislative history that the Legislature clearly understood some parents home school their children and treat their 8 homes as private schools

Paleski v. STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES

51 Cal. Rptr. 3d 28 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 7, 2006

Plaintiff, a beneficiary of the California Medical Assistance Program (Medi-Cal), has AIDS (acquired immune deficiency syndrome). He depends upon Medi-Cal for prescription drugs. … Compliance with the APA “The APA establishes the procedures by which state agencies may adopt regulations.

People v. Royal

California Court of Appeal · Dec 10, 2019

She wanted immunity from prosecution for R.J.'s murder, her mother to be left alone, and $15,000. … In doing so, the court clearly explained that it was limiting the scope of the cross- examination because there was no admissible evidence of L.N.'s demands.

J. W. Jones Companies v. City of San Diego

157 Cal. App. 3d 745 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 14, 1984

Absent such protest and vote, a resolution designating the area of benefit and the establishment of the FBA against each parcel in the area is adopted. … The sequence of development for planned urbanized areas mandated by the general plan clearly contemplates provisions for housing and industry to accommodate projected population increases in North University City.

People v. Keelin

136 Cal. App. 2d 860 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 9, 1955

The question of whether or not these statements qualified as spontaneous declarations was clearly and seriously at issue. … ; and that if they find them not to have been qualified they are to disregard them.

Cranston v. Gianassi

214 Cal. App. 2d 113 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 15, 1963

The relationship is established only if the stepfather receives the stepchild into his family and treats it as a member thereof. … It clearly embodies more than furnishing material help to a close relative who is in need.

Ashford v. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District CA6

California Court of Appeal · Sep 16, 2025

According to Ashford, Midpeninsula should not have selected Chaparral as the new concessionaire for the Bear Creek Stables because Chapparal’s submission did not meet the criteria established in the RFP in several respects … In its meetings of September 24, 2022, October 26, 2022 and August 24, 2022, the [b]oard of [d]irectors for [Midpeninsula] awarded a public contract for the operation of a ‘qualified horse stable [c]oncessionaire to provide

Lucian v. All States Trucking Co.

116 Cal. App. 3d 972 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 27, 1981

As indicated above, each plan clearly stated that the bonus was based on profits, was not determined or payable until the end of a fixed period, and that an employee who voluntarily left his employment was not entitled to … Our rule is in accord with the prevailing view that where a definite bonus or profit-sharing plan has been *976 established and forms part of the employment contract, the employee is not entitled to share in the proceeds

Alvarado Community Hospital v. Superior Court

173 Cal. App. 3d 476 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 18, 1985

Pegg’s new law firm did not receive a copy of the settlement draft from Alvarado until July 1984, and contend it was not until that time that they could definitely establish that Pegg’s signature had been forged on the check … As we know, that section although literally mandatory has been judicially qualified. The California Supreme Court has set “reality above artificiality.” (Christin v.

Melaleuca, Inc. v. Clark

78 Cal. Rptr. 2d 627 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 29, 1998

Evidence Code section 801 permits a qualified expert to offer opinions on subjects “sufficiently beyond common experience that the opinion of an expert would assist the trier of fact.” … [or] this Court would have embraced long ago the view that publishers and broadcasters enjoy an unconditional and indefeasible immunity from liability for defamation.’ [Citations.]

People v. Pierson

69 Cal. App. 2d 285 · California Court of Appeal · May 22, 1945

Clearly, this instruction should not have been given. People’s instruction No. 14 is also obviously erroneous. … The court remarked “You qualified him as a doctor.” It is contended that the court was thereby arguing for the People.

Hamilton v. Consolidated Water Co.

56 Cal. App. 7 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 29, 1921

established by the proof of the execution, delivery, and recording of the deeds to M. … As to the six inches of water in dispute, plaintiffs established their case by proof of the execution of the ideed conveying it to Campbell.

Kase v. Metalclad Insulation Corporation

California Court of Appeal · Dec 21, 2016

It also conducted a further study establishing Unibestos’s performance at high temperatures. … United States (1950) 340 U.S. 135 (Feres). 9 reasoned, since a pass-through of state tort liability costs in federal contracting would “ ‘defeat the purpose of the immunity

People v. Ruiz

44 Cal. App. 4th 1653 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 30, 1996

For instance, if the prosecution pleads and proves a defendant qualifies for sentencing under the Three Strikes scheme, the defendant must be sentenced under its provisions even if he or she otherwise would qualify for sentencing … Ingram, supra, 40 Cal.App.4th at p. 1416.) (4) Conclusion It is appellant’s burden to establish the disparity of punishments in this and other jurisdictions. (See In re v.

Souza v. Westlands Water District

38 Cal. Rptr. 3d 78 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 17, 2006

The trial was bifurcated, with the district presenting its governmental immunity defenses in the first phase. … Governmental immunity Because of the conclusions reached above, we need not discuss the district’s argument that the Souzas’ contract and invalid assessment claims should have been barred by governmental immunity.