Case law

People v. Rubio

California Court of Appeal · Dec 13, 2019

But our case, with no sign of blood and no witnesses reporting injury, is clearly distinguishable. … In Ryburn, the Court was not deciding whether an unwarranted intrusion into the home violated the Fourth Amendment, but whether police officers were entitled to qualified immunity from suit (id. at pp. 472, 477), an issue

Arax v. Thomas CA5

California Court of Appeal · Jan 31, 2024

qualify as a policy decision. (See generally Ed. … And although defendants want us to assume Thomas’s statements about Arax were made in direct relation to her “special commission” proposal, the evidence does not clearly establish such a connection.3 In sum, Thomas

Fox v. City and County of San Francisco

47 Cal. App. 3d 164 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 14, 1975

Even after the accident, he was able to pass the test and qualify for a California motor vehicle driver’s license. … Later testimony clearly established that the witness had been told nothing of this nature by the city attorney, but the witness’ wife had told him that some unidentified man purporting to be a representative of the city attorney

California School Employees Ass'n v. Foothill Community College District

52 Cal. App. 3d 150 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 25, 1975

Teachers clearly point out disharmony from speech is a natural by-product and any limitation or penalty imposed in the name of prevention of disharmony is an attack on speech. … Further, it has been established in California for some time that a person cannot be barred from public employment arbitrarily or in disregard of his constitutional rights (Fort v.

Olivet v. Frischling

104 Cal. App. 3d 831 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 21, 1980

Under the circumstances, however, we need not discuss the intricacies of his professional duties and immunities. No pleading isolates Frischling’s acts as attorney from those as board member and partner. … Clearly, the facts here alleged reflect that certain of the partners of Whittier Leasing have elected to compete with the firm itself and to thus breach one of the partnership’s basic underlying tenets.

White v. Inbound Aviation

82 Cal. Rptr. 2d 71 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 1, 1999

Defendants argue that Meier was “competent” as a matter of law because he was “legally qualified” to pilot an aircraft by virtue of his possession of a pilot’s license. … This instruction clearly told the jury that Inbound was liable for Jeffrey Marconet’s acts as its agent. It said nothing about Jeffrey Marconet’s liability for negligent entrustment.

People v. Justice

125 Cal. App. 2d 572 · California Court of Appeal · May 27, 1954

It clearly appears from the record that defendant waived *575 his right to the aid of counsel. … Contention is also made that the trial court improperly limited defendant’s cross-examination of a witness; that a doctor, who testified for the People, was not shown to be qualified as an expert; that undue lapse of time

Wong v. Restoration Robotics

California Court of Appeal · Apr 28, 2022

. § 1 et seq.) established a federal policy favoring arbitration. That distinction does not make the cases inapplicable. … The word “essentially” is an important qualifier. Wong does not cite any published case in which a court has held that a provision in a corporation’s certificate of incorporation is procedurally unconscionable.

People v. Leonard

93 Cal. Rptr. 2d 180 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 28, 2000

That defendant’s credibility might have been questioned by the jury is not the fault of the procedure established by the SVPA, or the fact the Supreme Court held that a nearly identical Illinois law did not establish a criminal … It also appears to this Court that it was the intention of the [Legislature that convictions for qualifying offenses even before July 1st, 1977, may be qualifying offenses under Section 6600.

People v. Hernandez

178 Cal. App. 4th 1510 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 9, 2009

Also clearly distinguishable is People v. … The explanations of the assault charges were clearly distinguished from the instructions pertaining to attempted murder.

De Vries v. De Vries

17 Cal. App. 184 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 29, 1911

Words of present gift are here clearly used. … De Tries, and clearly the court was right in holding that the interest so devised was a vested remainder.

Duax v. Kern Community College District

196 Cal. App. 3d 555 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 23, 1987

In this case, the governing board established a standard of competency that required one year’s full-time teaching in the subject area within the last ten years, a standard clearly relating to skills and qualifications to … Clearly, Duax was not entitled to a full-time position under those circumstances.

Health Maintenance Network v. Blue Cross of Southern California

202 Cal. App. 3d 1043 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 13, 1988

In 1977, Blue Cross set up Health Net under California nonprofit corporation laws to benefit from various marketing advantages of a federally qualified HMO. … The marketing advantage which precipitated the decision to establish an HMO stems from a federal requirement that employers offer employees a qualified HMO program if so requested.

People v. Salazar

201 Cal. App. 2d 284 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 14, 1962

This evidence, together with that already recited, was clearly sufficient to support the verdict that appellant Salazar was guilty of selling narcotics. … Furthermore, it is entirely conceivable that the jurors believed all of Garcia’s testimony but concluded that he was not qualified as an expert to judge whether a person was under the influence of narcotics.

Beckstead v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.

60 Cal. App. 4th 787 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 9, 1997

Mark Greenspan, who conducted a qualified medical evaluation of Beckstead on April 12, 1995. Performance proffered an additional medical report, from Dr. George Balfour, who examined Beckstead in July of 1995. … “Quite the contrary, all of the medical evidence more clearly supports a continuing trauma injury and therefore rebuts the presumption established under Labor Code section 5402.”

People v. Dellinger

163 Cal. App. 3d 284 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 28, 1984

Nor did the People establish the second prong of Kelly that “the witness furnishing such testimony must be properly qualified as an expert to give an opinion on the subject.” (People v. … Hence, on retrial, the jury instructions will more clearly define the meaning of implied malice.

People v. MacKenzie

144 Cal. App. 2d 100 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 21, 1956

We agree with the statement of counsel that the corroborative evidence should be considered apart from the evidence of Seeman, the coconspirator of MacKenzie, and clearly his accomplice. … In the present action, Mickey Jones is not named as co-defendant or charged as a conspirator, but the jury was given full information about her activities with MacKenzie and Seeman and the immunity granted her in the Orange

People v. Owens

79 Cal. App. 2d 290 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 21, 1947

Viewing the evidence produced in its most favorable light, it clearly establishes defendant’s guilt beyond any reasonable doubt. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1826; People v. Miller, 171 Cal. 649 [ 154 P. 468 ] ; People v. … facts assumed have been established.

Mein v. San Francisco Bay Conservation & Development Commission

218 Cal. App. 3d 727 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 8, 1990

Section 66611 establishes a procedure by which the BCDC is to adopt and maintain a plan for the shoreline zone, setting aside certain areas for “water-oriented priority land uses, as referred to in Section 66602.” … BCDC found that Mein’s house did not qualify under this regulation, and in this court Mein challenges neither that finding nor the validity of the regulation.

Nuland v. Pruyn

99 Cal. App. 2d 603 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 25, 1950

out the uncertainties therein, the court said: 11 ‘ Thus we could proceed and point out other language of the contract which, taken alone or viewed in connection with the provisions of the instrument above referred to, clearly … implies that the contract was intended to establish the relation of principal and agents between the parties and not intended as a contract for the sale of the goods; but it is unnecessary further to examine the contract