Case law

PMC, Inc. v. Kadisha

93 Cal. Rptr. 2d 663 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 7, 2000

A defendant proves a claim has no merit if he or she establishes one or more of the elements of the cause of action cannot be separately established. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (n)(l); Ochoa v. … The basis for the finding of personal liability is not clearly explained.

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.

Naismith Dental Corp. v. Board of Dental Examiners

68 Cal. App. 3d 253 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 21, 1977

Clearly, under this holding and rationale, the practice of dentistry neither touches upon a “fundamental interest,” nor is its legislative classification" “suspect.” … Board of Medical Examiners which qualifies this language, as is suggested by Naismith.

P. ex rel. Bonta v. Greenpower Motor Co., Inc.

California Court of Appeal · Jul 28, 2025

A single HVIP voucher can reimburse up to $100,000 per qualifying electric vehicle. … to better identify whether each HVIP-qualifying electric vehicle was physically delivered and whether each HVIP-qualifying electric vehicle was operated, and stayed in operation, in the State of California for at least three

Bellas v. Superior Court of Alameda County

102 Cal. Rptr. 2d 380 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 18, 2000

Former section 237 subdivision (a) provided that the names of “qualified jurors drawn from the qualified juror list for the superior court” were available to the public unless the trial court, upon request of the involved … “(j) ‘Qualified juror’ means a person who meets the statutory qualifications for jury service, “(k) ‘Qualified juror list’ means a list of qualified jurors.

People v. Davey

34 Cal. Rptr. 3d 811 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 17, 2005

.) *390 Under established case law, there are two limitations on the scope of section 654’s ban on multiple punishment. … Nonetheless, his crime is not statutorily defined as involving violence to the person, and the case law clearly limits the applicability of the multiple-victim exception to crimes that are so defined. B.

Brown v. Brown

125 Cal. App. 429 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 22, 1932

This ultimate fact is to be established by proof of conveyances from a paramount source of title or by evidence of prior possession, but proof of such conveyances or of prior possession merely establishes facts contributing … The presumption of validity declared by the proviso under consideration is a rule of evidence qualifying the wife’s right to equitable relief and places upon one who claims the benefit of it the burden of establishing the

People v. Waqa

California Court of Appeal · Jun 14, 2023

More generally, the risk of harm beyond that inherent in the rape was not clearly increased in the large stall compared to the small stall. … Nor did the movement to the large stall clearly enhance Waqa’s ability to “gain control over [Doe] and ensure[] her compliance.”

People v. Ince

141 Cal. App. 2d 382 · California Court of Appeal · May 9, 1956

Harris qualified as a questioned documents examiner and stated that in his opinion the endorsement on the check which Gray received from Levin in payment of the valves was written by Gray. John W. … For it is the function of the jury in the first instance, and of the trial court after verdict, to determine what facts are established by the evidence, and before the verdict-of the jury, which has been approved by the trial

Norwood v. Judd

93 Cal. App. 2d 276 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 10, 1949

An applicant may qualify in regard to his experience and knowledge in the following ways: . . . … It is clearly distinguishable from the present case. In the Hooper case the very agreement itself provided for the conducting of the bar business for 15 months without a proper license.

Jessin v. County of Shasta

274 Cal. App. 2d 737 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 11, 1969

County of Shasta to perform such operations upon willing qualified medical indigents, as are the plaintiffs herein. … The opinion concluded that the presently established policy of this state forbids the performance of a sterilization operation upon an inmate, either with or without his consent, unless it is clearly shown that the life of

Friends of Willow Glen Trestle v. City of San Jose

2 Cal. App. 5th 457 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 12, 2016

“In interpreting CEQA, we accord the [CEQA] Guidelines great weight except where they are clearly unauthorized or erroneous.” (Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. … The court held that, in applying these provisions, ‘the fair argument standard does not govern’ an agency’s determination of whether a building qualifies as a ‘historical resource.’

People v. Shope

128 Cal. App. 3d 816 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 16, 1982

Thus, section 320 is clearly applicable to appellant. … A place of business of an automobile dismantler which qualified as an ‘established place of business’ before the enactment of amendments to this section at the 1970 Regular Session of the Legislature shall be deemed to be

J-M Manufacturing Co. v. Phillips & Cohen LLP

247 Cal. App. 4th 87 · California Court of Appeal · May 2, 2016

No question that [the] representation that all our pipe is made in uniform—in a uniform way, that was a representation they were making to their customers and it was clearly not true.” … establish it was likely to prevail on its claims for defamation and trade libel.

DuBois v. Sparrow

92 Cal. App. 3d 290 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 25, 1979

, 5 and (2) that the admission that the signature on the copy was her signature established that she signed the original. … The document as shown to both witnesses clearly was a photocopy, both as to printed and typewritten text and purported signatures.

Consolidated Rock Products Co. v. State of California

57 Cal. App. 2d 959 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 6, 1943

The territory of Southern California is divided by the rock and gravel companies into zones, and transportation charges to the various zones are established. … The usé of the qualifying adverb “indirectly” gives the definition a very sweeping character, and were the question a completely novel one we would have no hesitation in holding that in such transaction the merchant was transporting

Fugate v. Cook

236 Cal. App. 2d 700 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 19, 1965

By an unbroken line of decision in this state since the date of the original enactment of section 437c, the principle has become well established that issue finding rather than issue determination is the pivot upon which … A qualified acceptance is a new proposal.” (See American Aero. Corp. v. Grand Central Aircraft Co., 155 Cal.App.2d 69, 79 [ 317 P.2d 694 ].) A counteroffer is a rejection of a previous offer. (People v.

Rinard v. Alhambra Unified School Dist. CA2/2

California Court of Appeal · Apr 29, 2026

The court then concluded 4 section 855.4 immunized AUSD from liability under FEHA. … Thus, the court did not err in concluding Lindsay 7 failed to establish she was medically and scientifically qualified to testify regarding the relevant topics of epidemiology, infectious

Miranda v. Bomel Construction Co.

187 Cal. App. 4th 1326 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 30, 2010

or by establishing a complete defense. … Miranda offers no reason why Kollmeyer was not qualified to formulate an expert opinion based on other scientific studies of the Cocci fungus.

People v. Avilez

86 Cal. App. 2d 289 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 18, 1948

Written reports of three qualified psychiatrists agreed that defendant was a “psychopathic personality” but that there was no “psychosis” and that he was legally responsible. … Respondent argues that the withdrawal of a plea of guilty is in the sound discretion of the trial court and requires establishing of mistake, fraud, duress or overreaching (citing among other cases People v.