Case law

Taylor v. General Tel. Co. of Cal.

20 Cal. App. 3d 70 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 17, 1971

Plaintiff had six years to go to qualify for a pension as a matter of right. It does not appear that the trial court was attempting to give plaintiff a pro rata share of this type of pension. … The 1964 booklet, which was clearly not a full presentation of the Plan, stated the “eligibility” of such a person for a pension, not his entitlement to one as a matter of right.

Estate of Helmar

33 Cal. App. 3d 109 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 27, 1973

is made that the typewritten portions found on pages 1 and 3 were "not incorporated in the provisions which are in the handwriting of the decedent" and should therefore not be considered as any part of the writing, thus qualifying … It would unreasonably advance form over substance to hold that such a mistaken belief, if it existed, would defeat the testator's clearly, and otherwise validly, expressed testamentary intent."

Doyle v. Chief Oil Co.

64 Cal. App. 2d 284 · California Court of Appeal · May 9, 1944

With respect to all of this documentary evidence, i.e., the run tickets or crude oil invoices taken from the files of the two refineries, the pumper’s daily gauge reports and the blue book, it was clearly admissible under … The records may be adequately verified by the ‘custodian or other qualified witness.’ This is a point of departure from precedent.

Jacobs Farm/Del Cabo, Inc. v. Western Farm Service, Inc.

190 Cal. App. 4th 1502 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 20, 2010

When private litigation threatens to interfere with the Legislature’s clearly expressed policies, it is precluded. … Furthermore, defendant’s argument is, in effect, that where the claim relates only to the place, a use permit makes a defendant absolutely immune from liability.

Williams v. House CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · Aug 8, 2025

The party challenging the award must establish an abuse of discretion. (Marshall, at p. 288.) D. … None of this establishes an abuse of discretion.

Contreras v. Dowling

5 Cal. App. 5th 394 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 26, 2016

Contreras Cannot Establish a Probability of Prevailing on her Claim. … Clearly, that is not the situation before us. 15 As the Restatement explains, “The lawyer’s efforts in a representation must be for the benefit of the client [citation].

Overholtzer v. Northern Counties Title Insurance

116 Cal. App. 2d 113 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 17, 1953

The contention that the Overholtzers’ answer admitted the validity and existence of the easement is clearly without merit. … Thus, whether or not the existence of the easement was placed into issue in the Musso litigation, clearly its validity, at least as to location, was there challenged.

People v. Turner

171 Cal. App. 3d 116 · California Court of Appeal · May 30, 1985

And since a plea of guilty admits every element of the offense charged, there is no innocence to be established. … Any other rule would aggravate the harassment of a defendant by requiring the prosecutor ‘to throw the book’ at him, to prevent him from gaining immunity and to protect the prosecutor from the charge of neglect of duty.”

People v. Williams

107 Cal. Rptr. 2d 135 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 12, 2001

The testifying officers were not qualified to interpret the results as a measurement of alcohol content in defendant's blood. C. … Where `the exclusionary rule does not result in appreciable deterrence, then, clearly, its use ... is unwarranted.' [Citation.]" ( Arizona v. Evans (1995) 514 U.S. 1, 10-11 , 115 S.Ct. 1185, 1191 , 131 L.Ed.2d 34, 44 .)

La Jolla Village Homeowners' Ass'n v. Superior Court

212 Cal. App. 3d 1131 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 3, 1989

sale of homes and the mass production and sale of automobiles and that the pertinent overriding policy considerations are the same. . . . “ ‘When a vendee buys a development house from an advertised model ... he [or she] clearly … Warner, however, concerned a case where a tort action was not allowed because of the city’s immunity under Government Code section 818.8; the action was only allowed to proceed to jury trial on a contract action for fraudulent

Regents of University of California v. Public Employment Relations Board

177 Cal. App. 3d 648 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 17, 1986

is clearly erroneous.” … However, even though the statutory language uses the phrase “other means of communication,” and clearly the particular banner spaces qualify as an “other means of communication,” it is true that the above statutory language

People v. Jones

4 Cal. Rptr. 3d 916 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 30, 2003

Mower (2002) 28 Cal.4th 457, 481 , 122 Cal.Rptr.2d 326 , 49 P.3d 1067 , a defendant need only raise a reasonable doubt whether he or she qualifies for the defense. … I agree that defendant's conviction must be reversed: Under the standard established by the California Supreme Court in People v.

Don Rose Oil Co., Inc. v. Lindsley

160 Cal. App. 3d 752 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 28, 1984

Clearly, the subcontract was to assist Appel in its duty to construct the building. … Plaintiffs were allegedly members of a class certified as disadvantaged and qualified for employment under the contract.

People v. Martinez

113 Cal. Rptr. 2d 229 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 23, 2002

Thus, we will not presume an intent to overthrow long-established principles unless such intention is clearly expressed or necessarily implied. (See People v. … In our view, if the Legislature had intended to establish a new and additional form of solicitation, it would have done so clearly, expressly, and unambiguously; it would not have employed the single phrase "solicits another

Bauman v. City and County of San Francisco

42 Cal. App. 2d 144 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 30, 1940

Hence, of necessity, in determining the question courts and juries must rely upon the testimony of properly qualified physicians for such testimony as will in the minds of the jury establish the fact in issue to a reasonable … Such evidence must be clearly distinguished from conjecture, or that which merely establishes a possibility of future trouble.

Irvington-Moore, Inc. v. Superior Court

14 Cal. App. 4th 733 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 25, 1993

However, that provision does not expressly or by necessary inference immunize a party to a lawsuit from discovery requests under the Civil Discovery Act of 1986. … The objection must clearly set forth the extent of, and specific ground for, the objection. (Ibid.)

Kerr Land & Timber Co. v. Emmerson

233 Cal. App. 2d 200 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 25, 1965

appellants’ rights to use the easement “in the general area surrounding the sellers’ lands” (italics added) giving full weight to the emphasized portion and disregarding the qualifying phrase. … The parties are in accord as to the elements necessary to establish a prescriptive right.

Dow Chemical Co. v. Superior Court

2 Cal. App. 3d 1 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 21, 1969

To the contrary, his opinion is and will remain wholly irrelevant and immaterial as evidence until the expert is called as a witness on the trial and shown to be qualified to give competent opinion testimony on a matter in … The opinion of such witness and the reasons for such opinion where it is based upon open, known or discoverable facts are clearly discoverable by way of deposition.

In re Tuilaepa

California Court of Appeal · Feb 24, 2025

Although section 1509 itself does not contain an express retroactivity provision, the language of Proposition 66 clearly reflects retroactive intent such that section 1509, subdivision (d), applies to petitions pending on … habeas petition “exhibit[ed] prejudice against the qualified experts, [and] the evidence on which they based their conclusions.”

Kleveland V.Siegel & Wolensky LLP

215 Cal. App. 4th 534 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 17, 2013

The Family Trust "The family trust was established by Chester R. and Jeanne M. Kleveland in 1995. Jeanne passed away in January 2003. … But the Rodney Property is clearly worth more than the Liquid Assets and the distribution of the Rodney Property to Scott would clearly result in an unequal distribution of trust assets, in