Case law

People v. Davis

California Court of Appeal · Feb 28, 2022

“A witness qualifying as an expert is disinterested if he is not ‘so personally invested in establishing the technique’s acceptance that he might not be objective about disagreements within the relevant scientific community … Although there was clearly a level of self-interest underlying Dr.

People v. DeJesus

38 Cal. App. 4th 1 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 6, 1995

Clearly, these are fundamentally different factual determinations. … evidence to establish probable cause.

California Medical Assn. v. Lackner

117 Cal. App. 3d 552 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 31, 1981

Section 14078 goes on to provide: “The director shall establish, at the time he or she *556 establishes the statewide rate for physician services required by section 14077, a level of reimbursement for physician services … This amounts to an acceptance of the state’s offer. 8 Respondent dentists suggest that the court found that a contractual relation had been created for the “sound policy reason[]” of avoiding the harshness of the sovereign immunity

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.

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."

Union National Bank v. Hunter

93 Cal. App. 2d 669 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 20, 1949

Unlike the cases upon which respondent relies, there are no qualifying words providing that the gift shall be “for the life of” Jennie, although that would be the usual and customary way to express such an intention. … accrued but not actually received by the trustee prior to the trustor’s death, however, section 4 provides it shall go to “the person next entitled to income by the terms *678 of the transaction by which the principal was established

Estate of Starkweather

64 Cal. App. 4th 580 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 5, 1998

Phillips caused to be filed a qualifying bond in the amount of $160,000, with United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company (Fidelity) as surety, guaranteeing her faithful execution of her duties as administrator of the estate … Clearly, Probate Code section 9203, subdivision (b), applies in this situation. We see no basis, however, for finding the statute applies only in cases where notice has been given.

Muskan Food & Fuel, Inc. v. City of Fresno

California Court of Appeal · Sep 27, 2021

C-005 may qualify for an exception from the location restrictions for new establishments selling alcoholic beverages, and therefore are allowed to sell alcoholic beverages with an approved conditional use permit.” 2 The memorandum … The appeal shall identify the decision being appealed and shall clearly and concisely state the reasons for the appeal.

Elser v. Gill Net Number One

246 Cal. App. 2d 30 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 31, 1966

The earliest Indian reservation in that part of northern California, known as the Klamath River Reservation, was a military reservation established by executive order dated November 16, 1855, pursuant to an Act of Congress … The language of section 7155 indicates that the State’s contention (made clearly for the first time on appeal) 7 is entirely without substance.

In Re Nichols

82 Cal. App. 73 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 26, 1927

The word ‘unlawful,’ as used in this statute, qualifies the word ‘injury,’ alone. … With reference to the point involved, the court said: “Prom this testimony it clearly appears that if the defendant was guilty as the jury found him to be, of larceny by trick and device as charged in the first count, he

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Superior Court

211 Cal. App. 3d 5 · California Court of Appeal · May 31, 1989

Clearly, without such a finding of liability, there could be no basis for the arbitrator’s award. … but would run counter to established principles of collateral estoppel.

People v. Currie

104 Cal. Rptr. 2d 430 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 26, 2001

tended to undercut the credibility of Jurica, based upon her involvement in various criminal activities, conflicting statements given to the police in an apparent effort to escape prosecution on drug charges, and a grant of immunity … The relevant “community” for cross-section purposes is the community of qualified jurors in the judicial district in which the case is to be tried. (See Mattson, supra, 50 Cal.3d at p. 844 ; Williams v.

International Union of United Automobile Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers v. Department of Human Resources Development

58 Cal. App. 3d 924 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 8, 1976

Needless to say, there are persons best qualified to work on one make of automobile, but we cannot conclude that available work on another make would be so different as to cause the individual to be without job opportunity … The cases relied upon by the petitioners are clearly distinguishable from the instant case.

Edmonds v. Augustyn

193 Cal. App. 3d 1056 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 24, 1987

The funds were entrusted to Sather Gate, which could only act through its qualified officers, in this case through Heneveld. … The fact that its qualified officer held his own license was a mere irrelevancy: Heneveld did nothing in his individual capacity he could not have done without a license.

Bandini Petroleum Co. v. Superior Court

110 Cal. App. 123 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 29, 1930

The conditions existing in this state with reference to the necessity for the conservation of irrigating waters are most clearly set out in the case last cited, and the reasons for the rule restricting the use clearly shown … But this is obviously not the purpose of the law, as may clearly be indicated by a single illustration.

A.H. v. Labana CA1/1

California Court of Appeal · Dec 15, 2022

The trial court’s order granting Labana’s anti-SLAPP motion recognized that plaintiffs’ cause of action against Labana alleged in part: “ ‘Labana published the Facebook Post, which clearly depicted and identified A.H. and … Indeed, it establishes the opposite.

Estate of Starkweather

75 Cal. Rptr. 2d 766 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 5, 1998

Clearly, Probate Code section 9203, subdivision (b), applies in this situation. We see no basis, however, for finding the statute applies only in cases where notice has been given. … Certainly nothing in Chapter 5 expressly immunizes a personal representative from liability for fraudulently failing to give notice to the Department.

Brown Co. v. Appellate Department

148 Cal. App. 3d 891 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 8, 1983

The reasonable value of the concrete was established to be $4,367.15. However, Livingston was not paid for the concrete. … The term “reputed owner” clearly must mean something other than the actual owner or it is mere surplusage.

Thorning v. Hollister School District

11 Cal. App. 4th 1598 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 30, 1992

present and eligible former board members may not, in the absence of constitutional justification, discontinue such benefits (a) during the current terms of board members or (b) as to former board members who had already qualified … In their petition, appellants alleged a number of facts to establish that the right to the benefits had vested.

Estate of Paterson

34 Cal. App. 2d 305 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 24, 1939

To the full extent of those rights she was entitled to all the privileges and immunities of heirship. If her mother had died intestate, her right to a distributive share of the estate would have been unquestionable. … To summarize: Clearly, Anna Maria was entitled to inherit from her legitimate descendants, and as such she, if living, would have been the next of kin of Paterson.