Case law

Standard Register Co. v. Franchise Tax Board

259 Cal. App. 2d 125 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 19, 1968

that a business is a unitary *131 one, unity of ownership, is clearly present in our case. … As previously noted, Pacific division established its own prices based on costs and competitive conditions existing in the market area.

People v. Aquilante

208 Cal. App. 2d 530 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 15, 1962

The equally well recognized exceptions to this rule are clearly defined. [2] Evidence of other crimes may be admitted when it tends directly to establish the crime charged by proving a material fact, where it is part of the … Zankich, supra, 189 Cal.App.2d 54 , 63.) [4] In a later and somewhat qualifying statement of the rule, the California Supreme Court declared that, "If such evidence is determined to be relevant to prove a material fact in

People v. Shane

8 Cal. Rptr. 3d 753 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 26, 2004

In this connection ... it [is] significant that the United States Supreme Court has clearly rejected the proposition that the constitutional right to a speedy trial ‘. . . can be quantified into a specified number of days … The statute provides immunity from liability for the person receiving the subpoena on behalf of a peace officer where short notice *204 precludes its timely delivery or compliance with the subpoena.

Welch v. City of Long Beach

109 Cal. App. 2d 561 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 4, 1952

Under civil service regulations appellants had qualified for and had been employed by the city as patrolmen in the police department. … ,” is clearly untenable.

P. v. Nunez CA1/1

California Court of Appeal · Jun 10, 2013

The court set an additional hearing to grant defendant the opportunity to present “medical proof” or other witnesses to establish that medical marijuana is the only alternative to “deal with his pain.” … „immunizes from prosecution a range of conduct ancillary to the provision of medical marijuana to qualified patients.

Summerfield v. City of Inglewood

California Court of Appeal · Oct 25, 2023

Otherwise, the general rule of immunity for public entities would be largely eroded by the routine application of general tort principles.” (Eastburn v. … establish the government employee’s liability for injury . . . aside from that of not maintaining a dangerous condition on its property.”

Violette v. Shoup

16 Cal. App. 4th 611 · California Court of Appeal · May 24, 1993

engaged in a variety of speculative tax shelter investments. 1 At the time of the Eagle Wind investment, he had passed an exam prescribed by the National Association of Securities Dealers and was a registered representative qualified … That portion clearly stated that the investment was “Speculative and Involve[d] a High Degree of Risk.”

Bates v. Newman

121 Cal. App. 2d 800 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 11, 1953

The first part of the answer was clearly responsive—“That is right, your Honor.” The remainder of the answer may have been unresponsive. … Sloan on his direct examination, he on a number of occasions, asked the doctor for his professional opinion on various subjects, thereby conceding that the doctor was qualified to express such an opinion.

Pacific Architects Collaborative v. State

100 Cal. App. 3d 110 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 10, 1979

‘Before a defendant’s motion can be granted, it must clearly appear that the action is without merit, and every reasonable doubt must be resolved in favor of the complaint. (Arnold v. … (but not necessarily the other) cannot be established.

Pollock v. Kelso

California Court of Appeal · Jan 8, 2025

Pollock alleged Kelso asked her for sexual intercourse in 2016 and, after she rejected him, he promoted five less qualified people of other races to positions she sought. … No established criteria calibrate the precise size and direction of the multiplier, thus implying considerable deference to trial court decisionmaking about attorney fee awards.

Pleasants v. Hanson

48 Cal. App. 626 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 24, 1920

the exercise of undue influence upon his mother to show that this court cannot justly hold, as a matter of law, that the findings upon which the judgment rests are not so fortified evidentially as to render them entirely immune … to exercise such influence established by clear evidence.”

Kern County Department of Human Services v. Mishiola S.

65 Cal. App. 4th 79 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 24, 1998

by testimony of a qualified expert witness. … Congress has clearly defined the nature of the relationship an Indian child must have with a tribe in order to trigger application of the Act.

Cory v. Dieter

108 Cal. App. 3d 591 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 25, 1980

The ‘emergency’ which gives the daughter the right to withdraw, is not qualified or restricted in the will to an emergency of any particular character or kind. … Each was clearly intended to be lifetime income beneficiaries.

In Re Retirement Cases

1 Cal. Rptr. 3d 790 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 11, 2003

It therefore remanded to permit individuals to establish detrimental reliance. … It did not suggest that in-kind advantages qualified as “compensation” if a cash value could easily be assigned. (Ibid.)

Younan v. Equifax Inc.

111 Cal. App. 3d 498 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 30, 1980

The court clearly indicated that it was dealing solely with the tort of breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing and not other torts. … Causation Defendants next contend that insufficient facts were alleged to establish proximate cause.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. 6354 Figarden General Partnership

238 Cal. App. 4th 370 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 1, 2015

These prepositional phrases clearly demonstrate that the relevant monetary worth is not a price that would be reached in a hypothetical transaction between a willing buyer and a willing seller. … In Wells Fargo’s view, section 729.060, subdivision (b)(2) “was designed to allow for flexibility in terms of what qualified as ‘maintenance, upkeep and repair.’”

People v. Vega-Robles

9 Cal. App. 5th 382 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 7, 2017

The burden is on the party seeking bifurcation to 60 clearly establish there is a substantial danger of prejudice requiring the charges be separately tried. … While the foregoing sentence appears to be categorical, in context it was clearly meant to summarize the evidence adduced at Price’s trial.

Doe v. Albany Unified School District

190 Cal. App. 4th 668 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 30, 2010

That act generally provides immunity to governmental agencies for injuries caused by their acts or omissions. (Gov. Code, § 815.) … Although, these sections are broader than those litigated in Keech because they apply to all children, they clearly retain their administrative character.

People v. Smith

43 Cal. App. 2d 110 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 17, 1941

Before we can set aside a judgment of conviction for a crime “it must be made clearly to appear that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support the conclusion reached in the court below … “Any question which would have the tendency to elicit from him the whole truth about any matter upon which he had been examined in chief or which would explain or qualify or destroy the force of his direct testimony . . .

Sturges v. Charles L. Harney, Inc.

165 Cal. App. 2d 306 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 19, 1958

Nor does it appear that the defendant requested any qualifying instructions. Defendant, relying on Gallin v. … The evidence here, however, clearly indicates that the city owns no easement between the property of the defendant and the properties of the plaintiffs.