Case law

Robert R. v. Gloria R.

88 Cal. App. 3d 11 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 4, 1979

II Robert R. next contends that even if the existence of fraud was not established in the proceeding to set aside the adoption, he was *16 entitled to rely on the fact that it was earlier established in the annulment proceedings … In other words, if an annulment clearly appears to be in the best interest of the welfare of the child, this alone would constitute proper grounds for annulment at the instance of either the natural or the foster parents.

Citizens for Responsible Open Space v. San Mateo County Local Agency Formation Commission

71 Cal. Rptr. 3d 813 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 31, 2008

Likewise, Citizens have failed to establish any prejudice resulting from confusion regarding the eastern boundary of the annexation area. LAFCO’s maps all properly depict this boundary. … Receipt of mail at a particular post office box does not necessarily establish one’s residence.

Stickel v. Harris

196 Cal. App. 3d 575 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 24, 1987

Clearly, ratification did occur. … (B) At the time it added section 1916.1 the Legislature made a finding to the effect that the amendment of the state Constitution's usury provisions "established an additional class exempt from interest rate limitations for

Brookner v. Superior Court

76 Cal. Rptr. 2d 68 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 22, 1998

Such counsels’ risks of exposure to malpractice claims are magnified to an unusual degree because the role and duties of advisory and/or standby counsel are not clearly established or defined. … Although an advisory counsel’s role is not clearly defined and is a limited one (see People v.

Upjohn Co. v. Brewer

225 Cal. App. 3d 353 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 16, 1990

The Governor would clearly have had the power to veto section 45.5 if it had been passed by the Legislature as a separate bill. … After plaintiff filed its petition for writ of mandate, the Legislature established an entirely different procedure for adding drugs to the formulary.

Stokes v. Dole Nut Co.

41 Cal. App. 4th 285 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 21, 1995

In this case the plaintiff employees made preparations to establish a competing business. … Since the employee’s behavior in that case was so clearly over the line, the decision does not purport to describe a minimum standard of conduct for employees.

OCM Principal Opportunities Fund, L.P. v. CIBC World Markets Corp.

68 Cal. Rptr. 3d 828 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 5, 2007

—and thus cannot be publicly traded—to enumerated qualified buyers (In re Livent, Inc. Noteholders Securities Litig. (S.D.N.Y. 2001) 151 F.Supp.2d 371, 431 ). … Although no court has addressed CIBC’s contention regarding Rule 144A, federal case authority indicates that an initial purchaser’s immunity from liability is limited.

Olsen v. Harbison

191 Cal. App. 4th 325 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 1, 2010

“Quantum meruit refers to the well-established principle that ‘the law implies a promise to pay for services performed under circumstances disclosing that they were not gratuitously rendered.’ [Citation.] … Where, as here, damages separate from the litigation are demonstrated, the alleged wrongful, potentially criminal activity, is not immunized.” (Id. at p. 100.)

People v. Fierro

180 Cal. App. 4th 1342 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 11, 2010

The standard for appellate review of the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction is well established. … But even if we accept appellant’s argument, we believe that the minute during which Ibarra heard the threat and saw appellant’s weapon qualifies as “sustained” under the statute.

People v. Steele

237 Cal. App. 2d 182 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 23, 1965

The ruling of the court excluding psychiatric evidence on the issue of guilt was clearly erroneous. We take it that People v. Wells, supra, and People v. … Yet, as the argument on the People’s objection unfolded, it became obvious that defendant decided to offer evidence to qualify these apparently unqualified answers by showing the sick, abnormal and unhealthy nature of his

People v. Jackson CA2/5

California Court of Appeal · Jul 14, 2014

patient does not confer an immunity from arrest. … plants for [a] qualified patient.

Buss v. J. O. Martin Co.

241 Cal. App. 2d 123 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 25, 1966

Applying the above rules, we think that the complaint clearly sets forth sufficient facts to establish a right to dissolution under subdivisions (e) and (f) of section 4651. (See fn. 3, ante.) … We observe that the language is in the conjunctive and that two factual *136 elements must exist to establish the reason.

Baumgardner v. Yusuf

51 Cal. Rptr. 3d 277 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 21, 2006

Unlike Ybarra , here the potential tortfeasor was clearly identifiable. … Here, the evidence clearly established Dr.

People v. Dain

California Court of Appeal · Jan 31, 2024

This change in the interpretation of section 186.22(a) meant that defendant’s convictions, by themselves, were inconclusive as to whether they qualified as strikes. (Strike, at p. 150.) … (See Carmony, supra, 33 Cal.4th at pp. 376–377 [the burden is on the appellant to clearly establish the sentencing decision was irrational or arbitrary].)

Shults v. Superior Court

113 Cal. App. 3d 696 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 19, 1980

The state’s attempt to seek a blood sample to prove defendant’s perjury and fraud clearly invades Tanya’s rights of privacy and of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. I turn to the defendant. … In my mind, this hardly qualifies Bynon as dispositive of the issue. We are a court of equal standing. 1 find its reasoning unpersuasive. Assigned by the Chairperson of the Judicial Council.

Cross v. Facebook

California Court of Appeal · Aug 9, 2017

These, Knight argues, somehow form the basis of his right of publicity claim, and qualify as ―representations of fact‖ made by Facebook for the purpose of selling more of its goods or services. … He thus cannot establish that anyone, let alone Facebook, obtained an advantage through use of his identity.

Braman v. State of California

28 Cal. App. 4th 344 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 15, 1994

By tying the state’s duty under Penal Code section 12076 to the California Tort Claims Act, the Legislature clearly contemplated that nonperformance of the former would give rise to liability under the latter. … thought otherwise, as demonstrated by its rejection of the Attorney General’s suggested version of subdivision (e), which would have read: “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Department of Justice shall be immune

Sasner v. Ornsten

93 Cal. App. 2d 467 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 25, 1949

The four requisites necessary to qualify a person as a holder in due course are: (1) The instrument must be negotiable, complete and regular on its face; (2) the holder must have received the instrument before maturity, and … The uncontradieted evidence in the instant case clearly shows that each check was regular and complete on its face.

Saad v. City of Berkeley

24 Cal. App. 4th 1206 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 18, 1994

1990) 915 F.2d 1290, 1294 [rejecting claim that Nollan suggested landowners have an unconditional right to build any particular project they wish and pointing out that “[t]he sentence quoted from the Nollan footnote is qualified … Unless the findings are so intertwined that a failure of one could reasonably lead the City to reconsider its denial of the permit, the Saads cannot establish prejudice.

Redevelopment Agency v. Superior Court

228 Cal. App. 3d 1487 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 1, 1991

This exception, while understandable from a “public policy” point of view, is clearly not applicable to this case. … The objectors have argued that the same legislative enactment that created section 33354.6 (Stats. 1976, ch. 1337) also established certain “restrictions” on legislative bodies to which section 33354.6 must be understood