Case law

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.

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.

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.

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. 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. 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.

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

Leverett v. Superior Court

222 Cal. App. 2d 126 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 7, 1963

We quote further from Worthley : “It [the United States Supreme Court] has also clearly indicated that as to either prospective or retroactive enforcement of such obligations, this state ‘has at least as much leeway to disregard … the judgment, to qualify it, or to depart from it as does the State where it was rendered.’

Minster v. Contadina Foods, Inc.

100 Cal. Rptr. 2d 871 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 17, 2001

Do you have any reason to believe that Plant was not qualified or competent to perform insulation work at Contadina? [¶] ... [¶] [A.] I have no reason to believe they weren't qualified." … The plaintiff contended that under section 416 it made sense to immunize the hirer from *881 employee actions, because it had done no independent wrong.

People v. Palmer

35 Cal. Rptr. 3d 373 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 31, 2005

Read in the context of the statutory scheme, the plain language of subdivision (d) clearly supports this interpretation. … Further, the existence of the proximate cause requirement supports the conclusion that other injuries qualify to impose the enhancement.

Fireman's Fund Insurance v. Atlantic Richfield Co.

115 Cal. Rptr. 2d 26 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 21, 2001

“Under this commonsense approach, Weber’s injury clearly ‘arose out of’ the work he was performing on the roof of Syufy’s building. … Endorsement to those situations in which an added insured such as D’Agostino was to be held vicariously liable only for the negligence of a principal insured such as Great Eastern, USF&G was free to draft a policy with qualifying

California Insurance Guarantee Ass'n v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

203 Cal. App. 4th 1328 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 6, 2012

Established rules of contract interpretation apply in workers’ compensation proceedings. … Taken as a whole, the language in the agreements does not establish an assignment.

People v. Zeasley CA2/6

California Court of Appeal · Jun 1, 2026

A manifest abuse of discretion is shown only if “ ‘ “ ‘the evidence shows that [the] witness clearly lacks qualification as an expert.’ ” ’ ” (People v. … And here, Zeasley cannot establish either component.

City of Pleasant Hill v. First Baptist Church

1 Cal. App. 3d 384 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 4, 1969

By a long line of decisions, it is established in this state that such a pleading is not admissible as direct evidence to establish a fact in issue. . . . … These established principles are clearly recognized in 4 Nichols, Eminent Domain (3d ed.) (§ 14.22, p. 525) where, in referring to the rule of cost of restoration, it is stated that ‘the restoration must be possible without

Los Angeles Unified School District v. County of Los Angeles

181 Cal. App. 4th 414 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 27, 2010

After a redevelopment project is established, all growth in property tax revenue that occurs after the initial or base year 4 is commonly called the property tax increment. … Although this shift was implemented at the expense of cities, counties, and special districts, the Legislature was clearly authorized to make this redistribution (Cal. Const., art.

Nienhouse v. Superior Court

42 Cal. App. 4th 83 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 31, 1996

Many an unjustifiable prosecution is stopped at that point where the lack of probable cause is clearly disclosed.’ ” (People v. … Section 872(b) is limited to qualified law enforcement officer testimony.

Theodore v. Danning, Gill, Diamond & Kollitz CA2/7

California Court of Appeal · Jun 24, 2021

Clearly those claims arise from protected activity within the meaning of the anti-SLAPP statute.” (Id. at pp. 811, 813.) … Hence, said Respondents clearly qualify as an enterprise.” Likewise, in his complaint, Theodore did not even begin to adequately plead the required “enterprise.”

Pfeifer v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.

211 Cal. App. 4th 1250 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 13, 2012

They maintain that the interview requirement is to establish a repayment plan and is not intended as a loss mitigation measure. … The lenders’ construction clearly frustrates the intent of the parties as expressly set forth in the deed of trust.

Morse v. Tochterman

21 Cal. App. 726 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 19, 1913

This is clearly and peculiarly a proper case for the application of the rule in question. … We think that this position must be sustained insofar as is concerned the period of time during' which the defendants actually occupied and used the premises, and that the latter cannot, therefore, claim legal immunity from

People v. Overly

171 Cal. App. 3d 203 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 16, 1985

Testimony by mental health experts is often the only way to establish whether such dangerousness exists. ( People v. … Appellant contends that, because Doctor Dennis was "the most qualified witness" and had seen no recent evidence of assaultive behavior, his opinion was entitled to greatest weight. Not so.