Case law

Choice-In-Education League v. Los Angeles Unified School District

17 Cal. App. 4th 415 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 22, 1993

The complaint alleged that League was attempting to gather enough signatures to qualify a proposed statewide ballot initiative for the November 1992 general election; 2 the proposed Parental-Choice-in-Education Initiative … (Initiative) would create scholarships available to every child redeemable at qualifying public or private schools; on March 2, 1992, defendants “adopted, published, distributed and caused to be distributed” a resolution

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.

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

Armstrong v. Wallace

8 Cal. App. 2d 429 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 22, 1935

App. 310 [ 173 Pac. 1008 ], that ‘Upon this showing the court was clearly correct in directing a verdict for defendant, under the rule laid down in Thomas v. German Gen. … Appellant strongly urges that what constitutes proper practice can be established only by expert testimony.

In Re Moore

34 Cal. Rptr. 3d 605 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 4, 2005

In overruling Roberts, the court in Crawford made a clean break from the line of precedent established by Roberts and rejected its continuing application. (Crawford, supra, pp. 62-69 .) … To qualify as a “watershed rule of criminal procedure,” the rule must not only relate to the accuracy of the conviction, but also must “ ‘ “alter our understanding of the bedrock procedural elements” ’ essential to the fairness

Cosenza v. Northey CA5

California Court of Appeal · Apr 29, 2026

However, the July 15, 2022 order qualified the award of joint legal custody with respect to the child’s medical care. … Cosenza disputed Northey’s characterization and stated K.C.’s immunizations were up to date and introduced her immunization record into evidence.

CC-California Plaza Associates v. Paller & Goldstein

51 Cal. App. 4th 1042 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 19, 1996

Johanson, who was qualified as an expert on the type of work Paller did on Cal Plaza’s building, testified that, contrary to applicable industry standards, Paller neglected to seal bolt hole penetrations left by the subcontractor … That ruling was, in our view, clearly correct.

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.

People v. Von Villas

10 Cal. App. 4th 201 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 9, 1992

Golab qualified for the “shield” protection; that the materials were relevant; that they contained nothing that would constitute impeachment material; and that, in any event, there was nothing in the tapes qualifying as an … Any possible error was clearly harmless. (People v. Watson, supra, 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 .) M.

Williams v. Superior Court

230 Cal. App. 4th 636 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 14, 2014

The petition stated that on May 20, Parole had established probable cause for the alleged parole violation. … Clearly the courts are not the ‘state’s parole authority’ after July 1, 2013.

Eastern Municipal Water District v. Superior Court

69 Cal. Rptr. 3d 314 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 19, 2007

This sum represented the current appraisal of the easement and expected severance damages by a qualified appraiser hired by the district. … In such a case, section 1263.110, subdivision (a), establishes the date of deposit as the date of valuation. The logic behind this is simple.

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.

Contra Costa County v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

240 Cal. App. 4th 746 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 25, 2015

Giving consideration to the purpose behind and the language of the amendments, the Ogilvie court answered this question with a qualified “yes.” … Most work-related injuries that qualify an employee for workers’ compensation benefits reduce earning potential to some degree.

Heiman v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

57 Cal. Rptr. 3d 56 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 13, 2007

Prior authority was clearly provided by the Agreement and the Association meeting. … Although the attendant had insufficient hours to qualify as an employee of the disabled person under section 3352, subdivision (h), the court concluded that *736 the state was a dual employer with supervision and the right

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.

Rafeiro v. American Employers' Insurance

5 Cal. App. 3d 799 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 24, 1970

“Floyd Lowe, an experienced and qualified realtor as well as Inheritance Tax Appraiser, was called to establish the extent of property damage suf *803 fered as a result of the conditions to which the previous discussion more … If, in this case, there was no such damage established in the prior suit by plaintiff against the insurer’s insured, and the damage established was excluded, it is unnecessary to pursue further the question of whether and

People Ex Rel. Williamson v. Rinner

52 Cal. App. 747 · California Court of Appeal · May 24, 1921

At the time of said repeal, and for some time prior thereto, the defendants were the duly acting and qualified trustees of the said Courthouse School District and they claim that their right to said office has not been affected … Manifestly, the residue of said provision can afford appellant no comfort, since it is clearly confined to “cities and towns heretofore organized,” etc., and- “cities and towns heretofore and hereafter organized.”

City of Commerce v. National Starch & Chemical Corp.

118 Cal. App. 3d 1 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 17, 1981

It is well established that the value of fixtures is to be taken into consideration in determining severance damages. … the jury in discriminating the purposes for which evidence of the future expansion plans of the church would be inadmissible (e.g., mere frustration of future plans of the owner) from those as to which the evidence was clearly

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.

People v. Vigil

169 Cal. App. 4th 8 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 12, 2008

With respect to both actions, defendant admitted that his prior conviction qualified as a “strike” within the meaning of the “Three Strikes” law. (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12.) … He also admitted that his prior conviction qualified as a serious felony with respect to action No. CC503983. (Pen. Code, § 667, subd. (a).) *11 In action No.