Case law

Concerned McCloud Citizens v. McCloud Community Services District

54 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 2, 2007

Clearly the District is favorably disposed to the ultimate success of this project, but the agreement does not preclude it from considering a full range of options depending on subsequent CEQA review. … “[Cjourts should afford great weight to the Guidelines except when a provision is clearly unauthorized or erroneous under CEQA. [Citation.]” (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v.

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.

Amdahl Corp. v. County of Santa Clara

10 Cal. Rptr. 3d 486 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 3, 2004

Clearly, utilizing the spares pool for this purpose was not holding the parts “for sale of lease in the ordinary course of business.” … First, Amdahl has not established that it was a “nonprofessional” service provider within the ambit of Regulation 133, subdivision (c).

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.’

West v. JPMorgan Chase Bank

214 Cal. App. 4th 780 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 18, 2013

[f] . . . [1] “Where a borrower qualified for a HAMP loan modification, the modification process .itself consisted of two stages. … Read in isolation, this allegation did not clearly and specifically allege a promise made by Chase Bank.

Dierssen v. Civil Service Commission

43 Cal. App. 2d 53 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 17, 1941

Thus, under petitioner’s interpretation, a person who is a nonresident when he takes the examination may qualify for appointment within the two or four-year period. … Section 140 of the charter creates the commission “which is charged with the duty of providing qualified persons for appointment to the service of the city and county.”

People v. Bergholm

181 Cal. App. 2d 778 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 16, 1960

If it had been established that Lamb’s methods were dishonest, or that Sobotka did, or could have, made an unreasonable profit, a reconsideration of the whole proceeding would be in order. … The evidence was clearly sufficient to support that finding. The judgment is affirmed. Bray, P. J., and Duniway, J., concurred. * Assigned by Chairman of Judicial Council.

Fendrich v. Van de Kamp

205 Cal. App. 3d 537 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 6, 1988

who own more than a 1 percent interest in a gaming establishment. … This is clearly an acceptable part of administrative overhead without which the program could not be successfully run.

Van Camp v. Van Camp

53 Cal. App. 17 · California Court of Appeal · May 26, 1921

The qualifying words might be eliminated from the findings altogether without affecting the conclusions in any respect. … It is true that it is very clearly shown that the principal part of the large income was due to the personal character, energy, ability, and capacity of the husband.

People v. Golden

California Court of Appeal · Jan 24, 2018

First, ‘ “[t]he burden is on the party attacking the sentence to clearly show that the sentencing decision was irrational or arbitrary. [Citation.] … clearly show that the sentencing decision was irrational or arbitrary. [Citation.]” ’ ” (Carmony, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 376.)

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.

Easton v. Strassburger

152 Cal. App. 3d 90 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 22, 1984

Superior Court, supra, 20 Cal.3d 578 , the “active/passive” distinction is no longer tenable, and, in any case, the evidence clearly showed that appellant’s negligence was passive. … tortfeasor is thus personally liable for the damage sustained, and the injured person may sue one or all of the tortfeasors to obtain a recovery for his injuries; the fact that one of the tortfeasors is impecunious or otherwise immune

Jones v. County of Los Angeles

99 Cal. App. 4th 1039 · California Court of Appeal · May 28, 2002

while employed by the County defendant *1042 The County alleged 15 affirmative defenses, including that plaintiff “was not an employee of defendant County of Los Angeles during the complained of incident such that he or she qualifies … Despite the same indicia present in the case at bench, the court concluded that “These attachés and employees are clearly employees of the superior court.” (Ibid.)

Holmes v. California National Guard

109 Cal. Rptr. 2d 154 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 29, 2001

Based on this language of the federal Constitution, the subsequent congressional statutes establishing the National Guard, and the controlling judicial interpretation of those constitutional and statutory provisions, defendants … By the same token, however, the language of the trial court’s judgment as it stands does not clearly exclude the interpretation asserted by defendants.

Hansen v. Hansen

233 Cal. App. 2d 575 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 14, 1965

Harrold, 43 Cal.2d 77 at pp. 88-90 [ 271 P.2d 489 ]); and so where the judgment clearly establishes the appellant's right to recover but the amount is less than he demands, he may accept it and nevertheless appeal, claiming … That the foregoing must be qualified by reference to all of the circumstances of the case is manifest from the opinion of this court in Whitney v. Whitney, supra, 164 Cal.App.2d 577 .

People v. Dillard

8 Cal. App. 5th 657 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 14, 2017

Wharton (1991) 53 Cal.3d 522, 585 [― ‗An appellate court will not disturb the denial of a motion unless the abuse is clearly demonstrated.‘ ‖].) A. … But the trial court‘s reference to the clear and convincing standard does not require reversal here because the record clearly demonstrates that defendant did not establish prejudice under the reasonable probability standard

People v. Howard

55 Cal. App. 3d 373 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 18, 1976

“Currency” would seem to qualify *377 as personal property. 2 We believe the warrant’s language was adequate to describe the money seized and there was no error- on the trial court’s part in declining to suppress it as evidence … Indeed, the affidavit clearly shows the basis of the affiant officer’s conclusion that informant No. 3 was reliable. (See Spinelli v. United States (1969) 393 U.S. 410 [ 21 L.Ed.2d 637 , 89 S.Ct. 584 ].)

Lincoln v. Sibeck

27 Cal. App. 61 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 24, 1915

The theory of his defense clearly was that, although the plaintiff had filed on this land covered by the relinquishment in question, yet that he was not entitled to the land because he had filed upon an excessive amount. … The record herein sufficiently establishes that the plaintiff had filed upon this land; that he executed a relinquishment in form sufficient to release his claim so that the land could be filed upon by some other qualified

St. Julian v. Financial Indemnity Co.

273 Cal. App. 2d 185 · California Court of Appeal · May 21, 1969

by Herndon in the application was based upon the fact that plaintiff’s driving record within the three-year period precedent thereto qualified him as a “preferred risk.” … It is equally well settled, however, that it is not necessary to make specific findings as to each of several material issues where the findings, taken as a whole or construed together, clearly show that they include the

County of Marin v. Roberts

4 Cal. App. 3d 480 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 18, 1970

In addition, the Wise dry-docks here were clearly not “abandoned” as Wise was attempting to sell them. … Thus, the trial court properly concluded that the Wise drydocks were not immune from ejectment by the County because of any paramount reserved interest of the United States.