Case law

Hildebrandt v. St. Helena Unified School District

172 Cal. App. 4th 334 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 19, 2009

School districts have broad discretion in defining positions within the district and establishing requirements for employment. (Martin v. … While considering Vassallo’s “proposed theory of ‘split seniority [to have] equitable appeal,’ ” the court held that the statute “clearly establishes a single date for purposes of seniority.” (Id. at p. 1215.)

People v. Lucas CA4/2

California Court of Appeal · May 26, 2023

A closely related doctrine is that of use immunity, which is “‘immunity from the use of compelled testimony, as well as evidence derived directly and indirectly therefrom,” which is intended to overcome any claim that compelled … Thus, the weight of authority clearly holds that the mere fact that defendant’s sworn statement was given in the context of a parole hearing does not establish that the statement was involuntary or subject to use immunity

People v. Haskin CA2/8

California Court of Appeal · Apr 21, 2016

It was also alleged defendant had a prior qualifying strike (1991 robbery) within the meaning of the Three Strikes law (§ 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d), § 667, subds. … Establishing ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal is a difficult burden.

People v. Lorraine

90 Cal. App. 317 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 22, 1928

The decision therein is of little or no value as a precedent, however, because the court qualified its decision by adding: “If all the evidence was before us it might be apparent that the admission of the testimony could … law of this state that error being shown in the *334 admission of testimony was presumed to be prejudicial unless the contrary clearly appeared.

People v. McAffery

182 Cal. App. 2d 486 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 7, 1960

Mire, a qualified expert in the handwriting field, testified that the signatures of “Dr. … establish the intent with which Dr.

People v. Jones

199 Cal. App. 3d 543 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 10, 1988

The evidence adequately establishes defendant is guilty of arson and that is not an issue on appeal. … If arson under section 451, subdivision (b), could be established by merely proving the defendant set fire to a “dwelling house” or a building “usually occupied” as a dwelling then, clearly, defendant’s conviction would have

O'Shea v. City of San Diego CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · Jul 19, 2022

Finally, they argued they were immune from liability under Government Code sections 820.2 and 820.4, and they were entitled to qualified immunity for the first cause of action (section 1983). … Code, §§ 820.2 and 820.4) and entitled to qualified immunity.

T.P. v. T.W.

191 Cal. App. 4th 1428 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 21, 2011

It would be more than slightly anomalous if a county social worker could qualify as an “interested person,” while a biological and custodial parent such as Mother could not. … That form is entitled “Petition to Establish Parental Relationship,” but in her filing, Mother altered the title by erasing the word “Establish” and writing in the word “Terminate.”

Hooper v. Barranti

81 Cal. App. 2d 570 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 24, 1947

the 15-month period attain his citizenship because married to a citizen, does not alter the fact that he knew that at all times the partnership was conducting the business, and that neither it, nor he individually, was qualified … Although it does not expressly refer to a sharing of possible losses, a reading of the entire document clearly discloses that intent.

People v. Oyaas

173 Cal. App. 3d 663 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 22, 1985

The court stated: “[T]his is clearly not the law in this state . . . .” (Ibid.) “The court in People v. … The qualifying language “[ejxcept in cases where a different punishment is prescribed by law” in our view refers strictly to the punishment prescribed for the crime when treated as a felony. In People v.

Azevedo v. Jordan

237 Cal. App. 2d 521 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 20, 1965

Both appellants were candidates for the State Assembly nominated at the June 2, 1964, Republican primary election, and as such qualified as nominee delegates to the Republican State Convention (Elec. Code, § 8002, subd. … A public officer whose term and compensation are not established by the Constitution does not have a contract to hold either his office or salary against the will of the Legislature (Mansfield v.

People v. Silva

119 Cal. App. 2d 421 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 28, 1953

Penprase, qualified forensic chemist with the Los Angeles Police Department, who examined the contents August 5, 1952. There were 10 capsules each containing a powder-like material, and a piece of paper. Mr. … court, can be set aside on appeal upon the “ground of insufficiency of the evidence,” it must be made clearly to appear that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support the conclusion

People v. McGee

24 Cal. App. 563 · California Court of Appeal · May 23, 1914

Every fact constituting a constituent element of said offense was sufficiently established by the evidence for the people. … Riggins qualifies the witness. He has not asked him his name, if the court please. Mr. Riggins: I will do so if the court wants it. The Court: He may not have any name and he may. Mr.

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

Bateman v. Kellogg

59 Cal. App. 464 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 24, 1922

-He received a qualified legal title, but the legal title nevertheless. … This was clearly shown by the testimony of an experienced surveyor.

People v. Calderon

21 Cal. Rptr. 3d 92 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 16, 2004

The *89 statute expressly lists three requirements for a valid SVP finding—qualified prior sexual offense, qualified mental disorder and the dangerousness requirement. (§ 6600, subd. (a)(1).) … This constitutional claim has been clearly resolved against appellant in Kansas v.

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

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.

In Re HA

128 Cal. Rptr. 2d 12 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 26, 2002

The request for confirmation includes blanks for detailing the dependent child's family history as an aid to a tribe in determining whether the particular dependent child qualifies for Indian child status. … Clearly, it did not send the forms to the tribe's chairperson and there is also no indication in the record that the health clinic was the tribe's designated agent.

Yellow Cab Manufacturing Co. v. City of San Diego

106 Cal. App. 587 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 19, 1930

Rep. 146], as follows: “When it is shipped by a common carrier from one state to another, in the course of such an uninterrupted journey, it is clearly immune. … He had established a local facility in Chicago for his own benefit, and while, through its employment, the grain was there at rest, there was no reason why it should not be included with his other property within the state