Case law

Ross v. Board of Retirement

92 Cal. App. 2d 188 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 6, 1949

The petition sets forth that petitioner has been continuously in the service of the county of Alameda since March 1, 1905, and that since April 21, 1931, he has been the duly qualified and acting auditor of the county. … establish contractual rights.”

People v. Smith

10 Cal. App. 5th 297 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 30, 2017

With these exceptions, even after determining the other elements have been established, the trial court must assess the reliability of the hearsay declaration before admitting it. … Clearly the Legislature knows how to impose an overarching reliability test if it desires to do so.

Edison School District v. Ross

131 Cal. App. 3d 362 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 30, 1982

At trial the District took the position that funds in the “appropriation for contingencies” account essentially constituted a “contingency reserve,” immune from consideration in the reduction formula. … The contemporaneous administrative construction of a statute by an administrative agency charged with its enforcement is entitled to great weight unless clearly *371 erroneous or unauthorized. (Rivera v.

Gerritsma v. Vogelaar

266 Cal. App. 2d 210 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 27, 1968

The record is devoid of direct evidence to establish what happened. Plaintiff’s injuries precluded testimony by her. … The former case was concerned with reconciling the parts of then Vehicle Code, section 562 which clearly put in comparison the conduct of a pedestrian with that of an operator of a motor *218 vehicle.

Starr v. Mooslin

14 Cal. App. 3d 988 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 1, 1971

Defense counsel then asked that the trial be continued to the following Monday to enable him to secure a qualified witness. … If it was a question of fact and expert testimony was not required the plaintiff failed completely in several essential respects to establish his claim.” In Ishmael v.

Notrica v. State Compensation Insurance Fund

83 Cal. Rptr. 2d 89 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 17, 1999

Counsel explained that it was the plaintiff’s burden to establish clearly and convincingly that SCIF had engaged in conduct that was malicious or fraudulent or oppressive. … Counsel’s argument clearly established the nexus between the conduct supporting the award of bad faith and SCIF’s concealment of those facts.

Inland Casino Corp. v. Superior Court

8 Cal. App. 4th 770 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 4, 1992

FSE further contends Inland has no standing to assert for its own benefit rights and immunities reserved for the United States or the Tribe. … A mechanic’s lien clearly attaches to the structure upon which the labor or material has been bestowed.

Garcia v. Swoap

63 Cal. App. 3d 903 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 17, 1976

Clearly, Mrs. Garcia’s income could have been classified as “sporadic,” though it is not clear that the part-time earnings of Mr. Castanon could have been so classified. Thus, Mrs. … Initially we note that states which qualify for AFDC funding and which elect to participate, must comply with the mandatory requirements established by the Social Security Act, as interpreted and implemented by regulations

St. James Church of Christ Holiness v. Superior Court

135 Cal. App. 2d 352 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 8, 1955

The allegations of the pleading and the relief sought establish the character of the action. (Id.) … The defendant, Daniel Boone, is also a duly elected and qualified trustee of the plaintiff but is not now acting as such and has not acted as such for almost a year last past.

County of Los Angeles v. Sullivan

32 Cal. App. 325 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 13, 1916

Necessarily the issue "must be determined from the opinions of witnesses qualified to testify upon the subject. … tended to establish the facts upon which such opinions were based, it was for the trial court to determine the value thereof as evidence.

Maleki v. County of Los Angeles CA2/2

California Court of Appeal · Jan 6, 2014

The siren made a deep “honk honk” sound that Mouradian heard clearly, though his window was closed. Mouradian slowed down even though he had a green light. … The court decided that Rahn is not qualified to testify about Los Angeles procedures and Riverside procedures are not relevant.

People v. Spark

16 Cal. Rptr. 3d 840 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 2, 2004

Eidelman opined appellant was in fact a seriously ill patient who qualified for medicinal marijuana to treat his pain. On cross-examination, Dr. … Bearman considered appellant’s condition to be serious, qualifying for medicinal marijuana. Appellant took the stand on his own behalf.

People v. Maita

157 Cal. App. 3d 309 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 19, 1984

No one seriously contends, however, that anything which occurs upon a stage is automatically immune from state regulation. In California v. … Maita] was clearly aware of their presence in my view before 10:00 o’clock.” The court in People v.

Tunstall v. Wells

50 Cal. Rptr. 3d 468 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 31, 2006

Here, as we have discussed, Wells’s intent to establish a forfeiture condition was clear. F. … A public policy that has not been clearly expressed by the Legislature should at least be fundamental, substantial, and firmly established. (See Foley v.

The People v. Ramirez

California Court of Appeal · Sep 12, 2013

After Menchaca initially refused to answer those questions, the prosecution, out of concern his testimony would otherwise be stricken, granted Menchaca immunity for his own involvement in those incidents. … [Thus] the reasonable doubt standard applies to a defense which, „if established[,] would tend to overcome or negate proof of any element of the crime charged as otherwise established by the People.‟ [Citation.]

P. v. Seymore CA1/2

California Court of Appeal · Apr 12, 2013

Clearly the information is on February 24.” 8 The prosecutor confirmed that his questions “pertain[] to the day before.” … , defendant could not establish prejudice.

Money v. Krall

128 Cal. App. 3d 378 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 1, 1982

He functions, rather, in the ‘borderline’ area, not qualifying as being mentally retarded. … There is no evidence he has ever had any other malady which would qualify him as ‘developmentally disabled.’” Dr.

People v. Brown

California Court of Appeal · Apr 3, 2024

They provide “increasingly detailed guidance for deciding whether a defendant qualifies for diversion,” and specifically decrease the burden on the defendant to establish one of the enumerated criteria—that their diagnosed … If the trial court determines Brown qualifies for diversion, it may grant diversion.

Vance v. City of Riverside CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · Oct 7, 2025

“Design immunity is often raised on a motion for summary judgment or nonsuit, thereby enabling the trial court to find the defense established as a matter of law. [Citation.] … [to] adequacy or inadequacy of stopping sight distance” established discretionary approval element as a matter of law].) And City does not address design immunity on appeal.

P. v. Seymore CA1/2

California Court of Appeal · May 1, 2013

Clearly the information is on February 24.” 8 The prosecutor confirmed that his questions “pertain[] to the day before.” … , defendant could not establish prejudice.