Case law

Wastexperts, Inc. v. Arakelian Enterprises, Inc.

California Court of Appeal · Jul 11, 2024

The communications themselves are sufficient to establish that fact; no other evidence of the sending party’s state of mind is required. … These communications, when combined with the demand letter Athens sent directly to WasteXperts, clearly show that Athens was contemplating litigation seriously and in good faith.

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.

HARUTYUNYAN v. Superior Court

169 Cal. App. 4th 454 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 19, 2008

Petitioner clearly had the right to have the contested proceedings about the continuance of the preliminary hearing heard and determined by a judge of the superior court. … Thus, there was no qualified judicial officer to rule on whether the prosecution established good cause for the continuance. Therefore, neither of the exceptions set forth in Penal Code section 859b apply.

City of Stockton v. Ellingwood

96 Cal. App. 708 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 13, 1929

Both of such elements are inadmissible.” a Appellant makes the preliminary objection that the witnesses for the respondents were not qualified to testify as experts or were not qualified to testify as to the market value … The facts appearing in this case are more fully disclosed in the opinion of the courts below, but the different recitals establish clearly, and we think warranted the court holding, as a matter of law, that there was no practicable

Casaletti v. McGuire

89 Cal. App. 2d 777 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 21, 1949

Defendants’ engineer, stipulated to be duly qualified, testified that he prepared a map of his survey and used the physical features as a basis for determining the boundary; that the physical objects found fell into a natural … It appears to us, without specially analyzing all of the claimed special defenses and the evidence supporting them, that the evidence would and does clearly support the ultimate finding that the true line is the one found

In re White

California Court of Appeal · Apr 30, 2019

(Johnson, supra, 135 S.Ct. at p. 2560; see id. at p. 2561 [“why should the existence of some clearly risky crimes save the residual clause?”]; id. at p. 2580 (dis. opn. of Alito, J.) … Johnson did not hold that consideration of the statutory elements of the crime immunizes an inquiry from unconstitutional vagueness.

City of Los Angeles v. Moore Business Forms, Inc.

247 Cal. App. 2d 353 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 20, 1966

Moore’s contention is without merit since the court clearly indicates that it imposed upon Moore only that burden of proof traditionally placed upon the taxpayer attempting to upset an allocation formula as arbitrary or unreasonable … The court held a trial de novo and found the assessment to be reasonable based upon that evidence. “ ‘The general rule, applicable here, is that a taxpayer claiming immunity from a tax has the burden of establishing his exemption

People v. Mardian

47 Cal. App. 3d 16 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 9, 1975

Hardesty was granted immunity. … that the witness had been granted immunity; used drugs; was a convicted felon; had sold narcotics; possessed an illegal weapon; and was working as a police informer.

Payne v. Anaheim Memorial Medical Center, Inc.

130 Cal. App. 4th 729 · California Court of Appeal · May 31, 2005

Payne argued the doctrine established in Westlake Community Hosp. v. … There must be ‘clearly defined machinery’ for the submission, evaluation and resolution of complaints by aggrieved parties.” In either case, the procedure offered must be fair.

Smith v. BP Lubricants USA Inc.

California Court of Appeal · May 12, 2021

Citing Agarwal, supra, 25 Cal.3d 932 at page 941, Smith argues whether conduct qualifies as extreme and outrageous is always a question for the jury. … Given our conclusion that Pumarol qualified as a “business establishment” when giving 21 his presentation, Smith plausibly alleged that Pumarol treated him differently during

Pederson v. Fini

26 Cal. App. 4th 1033 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 12, 1994

At a subsequent hearing on April 16,1993, it was established that Teri had started a new job but had not yet received a paycheck. … , The language as to mandatory add-ons for employment-related child care and reasonable uninsured medical expenses in section 4062 is clearly qualified by the language in section 4061 which provides that the amounts in section

People v. Dale

130 Cal. Rptr. 2d 530 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 30, 2003

At the court trial on the prior, the People submitted the victim's preliminary hearing testimony to establish that the assault was a "serious" felony. … Reed (1996) 13 Cal.4th 217, 229 , 52 Cal.Rptr.2d 106 , 914 P.2d 184 ), and because the "preliminary hearing testimony by the victim was uncontroverted and clearly established that the defendant personally used the broken

Marshall v. McMahon

17 Cal. App. 4th 1841 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 25, 1993

The Department established the current protective services regulations in 1979. … The person alleging discrimination has the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case that he is "otherwise qualified" to participate in the federally funded program. ( Norcross v.

Jensen v. Southern Pacific Co.

129 Cal. App. 2d 67 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 22, 1954

No. 149, naturally chose the latter as the more adequate and more clearly expressed and one which had been approved by the Supreme Court. … Under these circumstances we do not consider that defendant appropriately and adequately presented to the trial judge its desire for a suitable qualifying instruction concerning the circumstances which will excuse the violation

People v. Wells

12 Cal. Rptr. 3d 762 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 29, 2004

Bledsoe (1984) 36 Cal.3d 236 [ 203 Cal.Rptr. 450 , 681 P.2d 291 ] (Bledsoe), the trial court drew the conclusion, as does the majority, that since “common themes and theories of the average rape victim” cannot be used to establish … While the point likely would have been made more clearly and more emphatically in the absence of the court’s ruling, Dr. Eversteine did describe what she regards as manifestations of trauma.

In Re Borgogna

121 Cal. App. 3d 937 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 24, 1981

the ward is not clearly competent to speak for himself, others may do so and are fully authorized to be heard. … Similarly, since the responsibility is Harbor’s to make the placement decision, clearly the Legislature intended its decision to be effective unless it could be clearly demonstrated to be erroneous.

Chen v. Superior Court

13 Cal. Rptr. 3d 248 · California Court of Appeal · May 20, 2004

Clearly she is not a necessary party since a decision may be reached in her absence. … Kim was convicted of a federal tax felony and apparently fled the country prior to his sentencing date. 14 In order to establish a claim or defense based on equitable estoppel, a party must establish four elements: “(1) The

Kern County Employees' Retirement Ass'n v. Bellino

24 Cal. Rptr. 3d 384 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 9, 2005

Code, § 3534 [“Particular expressions qualify those which are general.”].) *792 Viewed in these terms, “of the state” is not used in the possessive sense, as in “the state’s agencies.” … Avoidance of conflicts of interest by local board members clearly is a legitimate state goal.

Dallman Supply Co. v. Smith-Blair, Inc.

103 Cal. App. 2d 129 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 28, 1951

It is defendant’s theory that the evidence established this oral agreement and its breach by plaintiff. … When the parties advised the court that this issue, which arose out of the qualified offer of September 4, 1947, to repurchase had been settled and adjusted it was a fair inference to draw that the parties had elected to

County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield Co.

40 Cal. Rptr. 3d 313 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 3, 2006

To qualify, and thus be enjoinable [or abatable], the interference must be both substantial and unreasonable.” (People ex rel. Gallo v. Acuna (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1090, 1105 [ 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 277 , 929 P.2d 596 ] (Acuna).) … Clearly their complaint was adequate to allege the existence of a public nuisance for which these entities, acting as the People, could seek abatement.