Case law

Estate of Emery

199 Cal. App. 2d 22 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 9, 1962

Estate of Robinson, 192 Cal.App.2d 847, 851 [ 13 Cal.Rptr. 842, 844 ], "But where, as here, the interest of the beneficiary under the earlier will is expressly challenged, the court may nevertheless require such person to establish … It is obvious that Henry Hubbard Middlecoff, the general guardian of Robert Fitch Middlecoff, has an adverse *30 interest to the incompetent; that he is therefore disqualified to act for him; and that an independent and qualified

Pfingst v. Goetting

96 Cal. App. 2d 293 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 2, 1950

Clearly, yes. Q. She expressed herself clearly to you, too, did she? A. Clearly and completely. Q. And in your opinion or your judgment at that time, Mr. … I object on the ground the witness is not qualified as a mental expert, and it is not shown he is an intimate acquaintance.

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.

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

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

Pipe Trades District Council No. 51 v. Aubry

41 Cal. App. 4th 1457 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 4, 1996

Although, it continued, that did not mean the act was immunized from mandamus, “judicial power relative to legislative acts is severely circumscribed.” (Ibid.) … , together with the reasons why not, clearly the DIR’s conduct throughout this controversy has been the opposite of “arbitrary and capricious.”

Martin v. Szeto

114 Cal. Rptr. 2d 618 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 20, 2002

On May 15, 2000, appellants moved for summary judgment, contending that any alleged utterances about Martin were protected by the absolute privilege of Civil Code section 47, subdivision (b) and the qualified privilege under … "The Legislature has clearly enacted a policy of encouraging parties to accept arbitration awards" and has provided "`disincentives to trial de novo.'" ( Ibid. ) While former section 1021.1, subdivision (b) (Stats.1998, ch

County of Los Angeles v. Ford

121 Cal. App. 2d 407 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 23, 1953

In the decision in that case, it is stated, 17 Cal.2d 606, 619 [ 110 P.2d 1036 ], as follows: “A reading of the entire text of said several sections indicates clearly that it was the intention of the framers of the charter … Without question the schools involved are qualified and *413 accredited medical schools, and the faculty members thereof are regularly licensed physicians and surgeons.

People v. Rippberger

231 Cal. App. 3d 1667 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 5, 1991

He had taken advantage of all available health exemptions to insure that his children would not be immunized against communicable diseases, and would not have their vision checked at school. … of evidence, both direct and circumstantial, will qualify as corroborative.

Dina v. People ex rel. Department of Transportation

151 Cal. App. 4th 1029 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 5, 2007

The Department further asserted that governmental immunity barred the nuisance claim and that Government Code section 815 barred liability for a common law negligence claim. … On the merits of appellant’s inverse condemnation claim, the trial court ruled that “plaintiffs have clearly failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that their properties suffered from ‘peculiar and substantial

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.

Simonet v. Frank F. Pellissier & Sons, Inc.

61 Cal. App. 2d 41 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 18, 1943

“Where the plaintiff’s decedent was injured when he was knocked off a bicycle on December 5, 1941, and sustained minor injuries to his person, was the evidence sufficient to establish any proximate causal connection between … Moreover, appellants can scarcely be heard to complain about the use of such language for it was the product of appellants’ cross-examination and in reply to questions that clearly were argumentative and hence improper.

Westsiders Opposed etc. v. City of Los Angeles

California Court of Appeal · Oct 1, 2018

So guided, reason dictates that the full exercise of the power is permitted except as clearly and explicitly curtailed. … Westsiders did not raise this argument in the trial court. “ ‘It is well established that issues or theories not properly raised or presented in the trial court may not be asserted on appeal, and will not be considered by

Long v. Barbieri

120 Cal. App. 207 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 26, 1932

continuously; and finally to intensify the specific duty it placed upon plaintiff to at all times look to its highest degree, the instruction told the jury that she must look “to the right cmd to the left” for the efficacy of the qualifying … In its given form the question was clearly objectionable. (People v. Hamblin, 68 Cal. 101 [ 8 Pac. 687 ]; 27 Cal. Jur. 143.)

In Re Marriage of Fini

26 Cal. App. 4th 1033 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 12, 1994

At a subsequent hearing on April 16, 1993, it was established that Teri had started a new job but had not yet received a paycheck. … . (1b) The language as to mandatory add-ons for employment-related child care and reasonable uninsured medical expenses in section 4062 is clearly qualified by the language in section 4061 which provides that the amounts

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.)

Stephenson v. Unemployment Reserves Commission

34 Cal. App. 2d 19 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 27, 1939

Oil August 28, 1937, petitioner qualified by open competitive examinations conducted by the state personnel board for the positions of field supervisor and, also, manager, local employment office, grade 2, in the division … Sections 122 and 123 are clearly intended to “facilitate” the operation of article XXIV of the Constitution, and being in harmony therewith, cannot be successfully assailed as unconstitutional.

Byrne v. Harvey

211 Cal. App. 2d 92 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 19, 1962

The record of the hearing on June 3, 1955, clearly indicates that both sides understood the nature of the order of May 31, 1955. Appellants now maintain that the order created vested rights in their favor. … This the court clearly had the power to do and its second order has been determined to be proper. (Estate of Coffey, supra, 161 Cal.App.2d 259, 264 .)

Sieglinde A. v. Smith

79 Cal. App. 3d 725 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 11, 1978

Faus and the authorities it discussed authoritatively establish that properly qualified evidence of comparable sales of real property is relevant to the issue of value of the real property in litigation. (48 Cal.2d at pp. … However, to be admissible, evidence of comparable sales must be properly qualified.

Giammarrusco v. Simon

171 Cal. App. 4th 1586 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 12, 2009

[trust] in such a way as to immunize legal proceedings plainly intended to frustrate [the trustor’s] unequivocally expressed intent from the reach of the no-contest clause.’ ” (Burch v. … Here, the trustors’ intent is not so “clearly” or “unequivocally expressed” that it would be frustrated by the beneficiary’s proposed action.