Case law

People v. Patterson

169 Cal. App. 2d 179 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 27, 1959

There was clearly no error in receiving the *186 expert opinion of Officer Hall that the cigarette Miss Aleshire smoked was a marijuana cigarette. (People v. Flynn, supra.) … The testimony of Miss Aleshire and Bob Jones adequately established the fact that defendant provided the cigarette in question, lighted it, and handed it to Miss Aleshire, who took several drags on it.

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. Singh

136 Cal. App. 233 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 11, 1934

No evidence was necessary to establish that fact. Jurors will be presumed to know what everybody of ordinary intelligence ought to know. … There was no error in giving to the jury the following instruction: “Duly qualified experts may give their opinions on questions in controversy at the trial.

Scott v. Flanagan

14 Cal. App. 2d 105 · California Court of Appeal · May 15, 1936

. *109 Respondents established by testimony of Flanagan and by M. P. … Also appellants have failed to establish that Berta Rideout was either driving the ear or that she had direction or control over its operation. Mr.

People v. Todd

9 Cal. App. 2d 237 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 24, 1935

Section 1, paragraph 9, subdivision c, of the State Primary Law (Stats. 1913, p. 1379, as amended) provides that petitions to qualify a political party on a ballot shall be circulated, signed and verified substantially as … It shall be unlawful for any person to make any false affidavit concerning any petition mentioned in this section or the signatures appended thereto. ’ ’ As above shown, however, the facts of the present case brought it clearly

Cislaw v. Southland Corp.

4 Cal. App. 4th 1284 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 25, 1992

performing work in which another is beneficially interested, the latter is permitted to exercise a certain measure of control for a definite and restricted purpose without incurring the responsibilities or acquiring the immunities … Clearly not. Colwell-Trujillo stated she had a “long-term” contractual relationship which could not be terminated at will by Southland.

Whisman v. San Francisco Unified School District

86 Cal. App. 3d 782 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 28, 1978

The reassignments were all to positions in which respondents were not only qualified but in which they had experience. The reassignments involved no decrease in salary. … Respondents correctly note that the rule is well established that statutes should not be given retroactive application unless the. Legislature has clearly manifested such an intention.

Wakefield v. Bohlin

52 Cal. Rptr. 3d 400 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 15, 2006

It reads: “(a) As used in filis section, unless the context clearly requires otherwise: [f] . . . [][] 4) ‘Prevailing party’ includes the party with a net monetary recovery, a defendant in whose favor a dismissal is entered … More than 70 years ago, the California Supreme Court entertained cross-appeals “from a judgment establishing a balance due from the defendant [property owner], to the plaintiffs, . . . contractors under a building construction

People v. Kemp

150 Cal. App. 2d 654 · California Court of Appeal · May 2, 1957

The New York statute by its terms clearly applies only to the person operating the vehicle at the time in question. … Code, § 90) without giving the qualifying limitations (Veh. Code, § 90.1).

Delta Wetlands Properties v. County of San Joaquin

16 Cal. Rptr. 3d 672 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 29, 2004

It qualifies or explains the general enacting clause. (U.S. v. Morrow (1925) 266 U.S. 531 , *141 534-535 [ 69 L.Ed. 425, 427 , 45 S.Ct. 173 , 60 Ct.Cl. 1023 ]; Reuter v. … The subject matter of a proviso is the same as that of the general rule it qualifies, and cannot be read to enlarge the operation of the rule. (People ex rel. Happell v.

People v. Pace

73 Cal. App. 548 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 10, 1925

First: That it violates the guaranties contained in that portion of the fourteenth amendment to the federal constitution which reads as follows: “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities … On the contrary, it is well established that laws which reasonably regulate the mode of disposing of property do not take away the owner’s right of disposition.”

Miller v. Busby

101 Cal. App. 2d 83 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 8, 1950

A brief résumé of plaintiffs’ evidence clearly shows evidentiary justification *87 for the court’s finding, particularly in reference to the net income of the court. … A real estate appraiser, who qualified as such, made a detailed written appraisal and testified that the reasonable value of the property on the date plaintiffs purchased it was actually $42,500, and that it had a monthly

Aitken v. Roche

48 Cal. App. 753 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 29, 1920

These provisions of the charter would seem to bring the case clearly within the reasoning of Mr. Justice Miller in United States v. Tyler . … Under this provision, the legislative intent was clearly expressed not to increase the pensions provided prior to the amendment for members of the fire department.

People v. Adams

California Court of Appeal · Mar 16, 2016

Our review is governed by well established rules of statutory construction. Our Supreme Court examined these rules in Even Zohar Construction & Remodeling, Inc. v. … The simple kidnapping instructions were clearly delineated and, as noted, referred to by the trial court when instructing concerning kidnapping qualifying circumstance pursuant to CALCRIM No. 3179.

Gottlieb v. Department of Water & Power

63 Cal. App. 3d 202 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 28, 1976

In view of the nature of this proceeding the requirements of the California Tort Claims Act *206 clearly do not apply to it (see Gov. … It is true that these two occupational groups are generally equally skilled and qualified and that they use the same tools of their respective trades in their work.

Cavey v. Tualla

California Court of Appeal · Sep 24, 2021

The untimeliness of the lawsuit must clearly and affirmatively appear on the face of the complaint and matters judicially noticed before an appellate court will affirm an order sustaining the demurrer. … Applying the foregoing conclusions about repudiation to the allegations in the first amended complaint and the matters subject to judicial notice, we conclude District has not clearly and affirmatively established it would

Epstein v. Frank

125 Cal. App. 3d 111 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 30, 1981

This principle may be applicable after it is established that a defendant was absent from the state. … Plaintiffs King (exhibit Nos. la, lb and lc) were clearly the prevailing party both at the trial and on appeal.

City of Brea v. Cloud 9 CA4/3

California Court of Appeal · Jan 15, 2014

Cloud 9 argues that the immunities the MMP provides from criminal prosecution for state law offenses “bars local governments from using penal legislation to prohibit the use of property for medical marijuana purposes.” … Cloud 9 relies on the DPA’s “sweeping prohibition of practices by local governments that discriminate against people with disabilities” (Cloud 9’s italics) by providing in Civil Code section 54, subdivision (c), that “no qualified

People v. Gutierrez

72 Cal. App. 3d 397 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 3, 1977

The Velasquez case is clearly factually distinguishable from the case at bench. … “So, based upon that, the People’s [sz'c] feel that they will clearly establish that he used heroin, not was under the influence of heroin, within the Pomona Judicial District. “Thank you. “THE COURT: All right.

Children's Hospital & Medical Center v. Bonta

118 Cal. Rptr. 2d 629 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 15, 2002

The court stated that its precedents “clearly establish that the degree of a differential burden or charge on interstate commerce ‘measures only the extent of the discrimination’ and ‘is of no relevance to the determination … The level of reimbursement DHS allows is clearly not responsive to market forces.