Case law

People v. Boyd

224 Cal. App. 3d 736 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 12, 1990

Reasonable suspicion may exist through evidence that is insufficient to establish probable cause. A reasonable suspicion standard is also utilized to test an investigative stop or detention. (United States v. … refrigerator or a ski parka [Palmquist], or the contents of a closet [Britton], appellant’s purse had to belong either to her or to Timothy Mitchell, but not both of them.” *749 Appellant argues the purse would have been immune

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

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).

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

Tomlin v. Walt Disney Productions

18 Cal. App. 3d 226 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 21, 1971

In Sears and Compco the court was dealing with products that lacked sufficient inventiveness to qualify for patent protection. … But Congress has established a procedural scheme of protection by notice and registration.

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.)

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.)

M. W. v. Panama Buena Vista Union School District

1 Cal. Rptr. 3d 673 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 11, 2003

The principles pertaining to a school district’s duty to supervise students are well established. … This was clearly a troubled child and the District knew it.

Barkley v. City of Blue Lake

47 Cal. App. 4th 309 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 10, 1996

The fact that Barkley had previously established his claim by obtaining the 1969 judgment makes no *315 difference. … These purposes are clearly related to unadjudicated claims.

People v. Brooks

234 Cal. App. 2d 662 · California Court of Appeal · May 26, 1965

The court qualified the foregoing as follows: "The appellant's further argument that an effect of the testimony of the probation officer was to disclose to the jury that he had been convicted of the charged offense in a prior … Here the evidence of possession on December 21 and July 11 is controverted, but overwhelmingly established.

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.

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

Bartalo v. Superior Court

51 Cal. App. 3d 526 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 19, 1975

It established for the first time in California that the spouse of an injured person in a tort action has a right of recovery for loss of consortium. … We are not unaware of cases that have allowed the addition of a new party by an amendment to the complaint. 3 However, these cases on analysis are clearly distinguishable.

People v. Superior Court

213 Cal. App. 4th 774 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 7, 2013

Karsai argues that this latter statute, “by use of the conjunctive ‘or’ between ‘community’ and ‘specific address’ thus clearly contemplates that an SVP may be released with a ‘specific address’, i.e., as a non-transient, … The point is that, contrary to Karsai’s assertion, subdivision (c) of section 6609.1 does not “clearly” contemplate release into a community as a transient without a fixed residential address.

Cory v. Tivel

80 Cal. App. 3d 185 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 21, 1978

Brian, according to the Controller, did not otherwise qualify as either a Class A transferee or as a Class B transferee as defined in section 13308. … Throughout the 14-year period from April 1960 to June 1974, there is evidence, in addition to the assumption of mutual obligations and undertaking of responsibilities, to indicate clearly a true parent-child relationship

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

Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

117 Cal. Rptr. 2d 865 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 19, 2002

He found that section 3208.3, subdivision (b)(1) did not apply and, in the alternative, that the opinion of the qualified medical examiner justified a finding that the applicant’s psychiatric injury was, in fact, predominantly … The language of section 3208.3, subdivision (b)(1) clearly and unambiguously refers to the compensability of a “psychiatric injury,” without any exceptions.

D. G. v. Superior Court

100 Cal. App. 3d 535 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 27, 1979

However, as previously noted, the action to determine parentage under the circumstances of this case is clearly authorized by the provisions of section 11350.1 Inasmuch as the complaint asks for no more than is proper within … be qualified to handle the estate.

Environmental Protection Information Center v. Department of Forestry & Fire Protection

43 Cal. App. 4th 1011 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 18, 1996

It held that, inasmuch as the Pacific Legal Foundation had pleaded that it, too, was an employer and subject to the defendant board’s overall, long-term regulation (including its precedent decisions), it qualified as an interested … It stated the general rule to be as follows: “[I]t is the board, and not the courts, that establishes forest policy, nn . . .

People v. Van Vy

19 Cal. Rptr. 3d 402 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 25, 2004

He claims that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to establish that YA was a “criminal street gang” because the prosecution did not establish that the commission of one or more predicate crimes was one of YA … Besides the subject shooting of a youth by the defendant, the only predicate crime that the evidence clearly showed was committed by either such gang was an attempted murder of another youth six years earlier. {Ibid.)