Case law

People v. Diaz

207 Cal. App. 4th 396 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 28, 2012

‘Before a judgment of conviction can be set aside for insufficiency of the evidence to support the trier of fact’s verdict, it must clearly appear that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient evidence to support it … from punishment even where the evidence establishes their intent to use the tool or instrument in their possession to commit burglary.

Akins v. ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR CO.

94 Cal. Rptr. 2d 448 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 20, 2000

All expenses incurred on the common issues qualify for an award. (See Reynolds Metals Co. v. Alperson (1979) 25 Cal.3d 124, 129-130 [ 158 Cal.Rptr. 1 , 599 P.2d 83 ] [contractual right to fee case].) … Thus, it clearly appears that the trial court exercised its discretion.

Williams v. California Physicians' Service

85 Cal. Rptr. 2d 497 · California Court of Appeal · May 28, 1999

Plaintiffs cite nothing suggesting the Plan qualified as “insurance.” … Contrary to plaintiffs’ position, Fields did not establish a general rule in California that the Plan benefits vest upon the occurrence of the injury.

People v. Gallo

127 Cal. App. 3d 828 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 23, 1981

immunity; used drugs; was a convicted felon; had sold narcotics; possessed an illegal weapon; and was working as a police informer. … Similarly, in the present case, the officer not only knew someone was in the house but could see them, and was clearly visible to them through the screen door.

Tafoya v. Hastings College of Law

191 Cal. App. 3d 437 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 27, 1987

Hastings replies that the Act does not apply to the Board or the faculty because Hastings enjoys the same limited immunity from legislative interference enjoyed by the University. … Appellants correctly point out that the constitutional immunity from legislative control granted to the University is not specifically extended to Hastings.

CA Water Assn. v. St. Water Resources Control Bd.

California Court of Appeal · Mar 2, 2018

We need not address the Board’s claims because the trial court’s finding that the “Division devotes an unquantified, but clearly non-trivial, proportion of its resources to issues involving . . . … The Applicable Law “Under established principles of sovereign immunity, the federal government is immune from state taxation absent its consent.” (Farm Bureau II, supra, 51 Cal.4th at p. 443.)

Historic Architecture Alliance v. City of Laguna Beach

California Court of Appeal · Oct 6, 2023

The original design and form of the house must remain clearly identifiable.” A third recommendation was: “Retain as many original features as possible including original windows and doors in original locations. … If this was all the challenger had to establish, the historical resource categorical exemption would be meaningless.

Channing Properties v. City of Berkeley

11 Cal. App. 4th 88 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 25, 1992

Established rules of statutory construction lead us to accept appellant’s interpretation of the statute. … Health and Safety Code section 50079.5 defines “lower income households” as meaning persons and families whose income does not exceed the qualifying limits for lower income families as established and amended from time to

People v. Garcia

178 Cal. App. 3d 814 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 12, 1986

Initially, we note that the prosecution sought to introduce Boney’s statements on a theory upon which they were clearly admissible, namely as spontaneous declarations. … And a statement made contemporaneously with one criminal event has been regarded as “clearly admissible” in a prosecution for a subsequent crime. (People v.

In re Edwards

California Court of Appeal · Sep 7, 2018

Edwards and CDCR agree, as long-established authority holds, that “an indeterminate life term under the Three Strikes law . . . . is an alternative sentence . . . .” (People v. … (Nov. 8, 2016) rebuttal to argument against Prop. 57, p. 59 [“The California Supreme Court clearly stated that parole eligibility under Prop. 57 applies, ‘only to prisoners convicted of non-violent felonies.’ (Brown v.

Myers v. King

272 Cal. App. 2d 571 · California Court of Appeal · May 2, 1969

the long established and familiar rule reserving to pedestrians the limited right of walking near the left-hand edge of a roadway. … Hamasaki is clearly distinguishable. In that case the issue of liability was extremely close.

National Automobile & Casualty Insurance v. Underwood

9 Cal. App. 4th 31 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 28, 1992

Pisciotta (1982) 30 Cal.3d 800 [ 180 Cal.Rptr. 628 , 640 P.2d 764 ], our Supreme Court set forth the established principles we use to interpret insurance policies. … What qualifies as language of the Legislature are standard form insurance policies which are required by statute (Prudential-LMI Com. Insurance v.

Marble Mortgage Co. v. Franchise Tax Board

241 Cal. App. 2d 26 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 22, 1966

The ease also established that the applicable standards are those established by the U.S. … As to these loans, Marble is clearly in competition with national banks.

Don't Cell Our Parks v. City of San Diego

California Court of Appeal · Mar 15, 2018

DCOP also asserts that the Project does not qualify under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Pub. … The City's conclusion that the Project does not interfere with the use or purpose of the Park touches upon policy issues within the purview of the Park Director and is not clearly erroneous.

City of L.A. v. Super. Ct.

California Court of Appeal · Mar 20, 2017

record public clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record.‟” (Times Mirror Co. v. … Moreover, a CPRA proceeding is clearly “civil in nature,” as it is “wholly unrelated to any criminal case.” (Moore v.

Henderson v. Drake

138 Cal. App. 2d 621 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 23, 1956

Although respondent does not expressly or clearly treat this point it seems to be his contention that the instruction was not prejudcial because there was no evidence whatever from which the jury could have concluded a lack … Cross-appellant, who himself qualified as an expert, relies on his own testimony that the production of the power of attorney in court is required only if the attorney in fact wishes to defend the action, not when he defaults

Shaw v. Mcmahon

219 Cal. App. 3d 973 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 23, 1990

The AFDC Program The AFDC program was established in 1935 for the purpose of providing benefits to families whose children were needy because of the death, absence or incapacity of a parent. ( 42 U.S.C. §§ 601 , 606(a); Batterton … includes not only labor connection or work history, but also the mandate that the recipient be the parent of a “dependent child” who is not eligible for AFDC-FG. ( 45 C.F.R. § 233.100 (a).) 7 The cited regulatory provisions clearly

Russell v. Dopp

36 Cal. App. 4th 765 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 12, 1995

Under her version of the facts, the defendants were unaware victims of an unlicensed attorney who was not qualified to represent them and did so incompetently. … Dopp are accepted here, she clearly acted with due diligence upon learning that her attorney was not an attorney.

Acqua Vista Homeowners Assn. v. MWI, Inc.

7 Cal. App. 5th 1129 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 26, 2017

Section 896, a provision outside of Chapter 4 of the statute, clearly sets forth a standard of liability applicable to builders. … Such statements clearly do not constitute evidence that may be relied upon to support the verdict.

Cole v. Superior Court

173 Cal. App. 3d 265 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 30, 1985

What public assistance lawyers there are claim she is not qualified for their services because in Arizona, she was living with her husband, and his money counted as hers also. … Further, the Arizona attorney argues Candice’s attorney never clearly informed him that she would be out of the state for much of June and would require more time before the jurisdictional hearing.