Case law

People v. Gonzales

218 Cal. App. 3d 403 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 27, 1990

Whether or not the handler was qualified by training and experience to use the dog. “2. Whether or not the dog was adequately trained in tracking humans. “3. … ^] when it is shewn to correspond with the representation of some other witness, or to comport with some facts otherwise known or established.

State Water Resources Control Bd. v. Super. Ct.

California Court of Appeal · Oct 29, 2025

qualify for the exemption’ ” because groundwater agencies “ ‘cannot qualify for the good actor exemption with plans that do not meet [the Act’s] requirements.’ ” The fourth, called the “Probation Exit Regulation,” … These too, are lacking in their ability to clearly resolve this issue.

Conservatorship of Buchanan

78 Cal. App. 3d 281 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 7, 1978

We agree that the portion of the records consisting of observations of Buchanan by the VMC staff was clearly admissible. … Buchanan correctly points to the various preferences and priorities established by LPS for local treatments (§§ 5358, 5120) and placement with relatives.

Knox v. Superior Court

140 Cal. App. 3d 782 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 15, 1983

“After the 1941 amendment, it was established that Civil Code section 29 contains the statute of limitations for prenatal injuries. … Section 340.5 contains no explicit reference to section 340, even though within the scope of its intended application the new statute narrowed the common law delayed discovery rule which qualified the latter section.

Damjanovic v. Ambrose

3 Cal. App. 4th 503 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 7, 1992

subdivision an action is commenced at the time the complaint is filed.” 6 Failure to adhere to the time constraints of section 583.210 of the Code of Civil Procedure will result in an action’s dismissal, unless a plaintiff qualifies … We conclude that plaintiffs have not established that service of the civilian defendants was impracticable or futile. Is Section 945.3 Applicable to Civilian Defendants?

Hills v. Aronsohn

152 Cal. App. 3d 753 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 2, 1984

Hills’ final argument is that the silicone qualifies as a “foreign body” within the meaning of the exception to the three-year limitations period contained in section 340.5. She cites Agnew v. … The analysis employed by our high court in Brown clearly implies that a plaintiff must meet both of the limitations provisions of section 340.5.

Burkle v. Burkle

50 Cal. Rptr. 3d 436 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 30, 2006

Under well-established precedent precluding parties to dissolution proceedings from engaging in “family law waged by other means” (Neal v. … Of course, that is a correct statement of the law, because interspousal immunity no longer exists.

Estate of Haney

174 Cal. App. 2d 1 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 24, 1959

'all the property then in the hands of the trustee ... shall go to and vest in the heirs at law of said Alfred Easter, deceased,' clearly indicates an intention that the interests of the heirs should vest at the time of the … The gift to the class must therefore be distributed among those who qualify at the time specified. (3 Powell, The Law of Real Property, 365, especially p. 165.)

Chazen v. Centennial Bank

61 Cal. App. 4th 532 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 12, 1998

In 1941 the protection of the statute was further broadened by an amendment applying its provisions to accounts carrying a specific qualifying designation, such as agent or trustee.” … Such actions clearly are subject to “ ‘overriding policy considerations’ ” that preclude the existence of a duty under general tort principles. (Dillon v.

People v. Romero

122 Cal. Rptr. 2d 399 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 11, 2002

In that decision, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held “that the California Court of Appeal decisions upholding 25-year-to-life sentences for petty theft were contrary to and unreasonable applications of clearly established … As can be observed from the various opinions in Harmelin , the Supreme Court law is not “clearly established” within the meaning of 28 United States Code section 2254 . B.

Bucquet v. Livingston

57 Cal. App. 3d 914 · California Court of Appeal · May 3, 1976

Thus, the damage to the beneficiaries in the event that the power continued after George’s death was clearly foreseeable and became certain after he died. … In Ventura, we were concerned with establishing a precedent that would force attorneys to draft litigation-proof documents.

Gregory v. State of California

77 Cal. App. 2d 26 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 25, 1946

The directors had surrendered their qualifying shares and received nothing. … Clearly there was no change in the economic benefits in this portion of the trust funds. Hutchings v. Commisisoner of Int.

Arno v. Stewart

245 Cal. App. 2d 955 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 28, 1966

How the nature of this organization was so established is not revealed by the record. … The lower court instructed that such fact if established could only be considered in mitigation of damages. The opinion on appeal states: "This part of the charge is clearly erroneous.

People v. Rissman

154 Cal. App. 2d 265 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 7, 1957

The intent of defendant to solicit another to offer and to join in the offer of a bribe to obtain liquor licenses as charged in Counts I and III was clearly established. … , and the place qualified,’ but if it didn’t qualify, you couldn't get it, see?

Lopez v. Nissan North America, Inc.

201 Cal. App. 4th 572 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 5, 2011

“To forestall an action under the unfair competition law, another provision must actually ‘bar’ the action or clearly permit the conduct.” (Id. at p. 183.) Recently, in Alvarez v. … In deeming qualifying odometers “correct,” section 12500, subdivision (c) “clearly permit[s]” their design (Cel-Tech, supra, 20 Cal.4th at p. 183 ), and we “may not use the unfair competition law to condemn actions the Legislature

Parsley v. Superior Court

40 Cal. App. 2d 446 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 19, 1940

Petitioner was qualified as the executrix of the estate of said deceased on June 14, 1938, and as such executrix took into her possession all of the assets of the estate. … In order to quiet title in himself and to establish property as community property and to recover personal property and to procure an accounting, the surviving husband of Lucile, Everett Franklin Hare, filed his action in

Hansford v. Lassar

53 Cal. App. 3d 364 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 1, 1975

This evidence is not unlike that found in the Baron, May and Oak Knoll Broadcasting Corp. cases, and is clearly sufficient to establish the facts necessary to rebut the joint-tenancy-ownership presumption by proving the nonexistence … This proffered testimony as to the fair market value of assets on the date of his conveyance was clearly relevant to establish the “fair salable value of his [husband’s] assets,” a required ingredient for the determination

People v. Mendoza

10 Cal. App. 5th 327 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 30, 2017

Defendants attack the trial court’s justification for excluding the statements, which was based on Justice Kennard’s concurrence in Gordon, where she stated “it is well established that a statement made under a grant of immunity … The prosecution presented sufficient evidence for a reasonable trier of fact to find that defendants’ gang qualified as a criminal street gang beyond a reasonable doubt.

Skulte v. Ahern

22 Cal. App. 2d 460 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 30, 1937

His motion for a new trial having been denied, appellant appeals from the judgment, and in support thereof claims that the evidence does not establish his negligence but does establish respondent’s contributory negligence … The instruction clearly distinguishes between these two different burdens for one alone is qualified by the addition of the phrase “of proof”. The two clauses are not contradictory.

Rose v. Knapp

153 Cal. App. 2d 379 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 21, 1957

The court stated the purposes of acknowledgment, which are to enable the instrument to be placed of record and to qualify it for introduction in evidence without further proof of execution and delivery. … A notice of lis pendens only gives notice of what may be established by the judgment, and is effective with respect to what is established.