Case law

In Re Bangle

54 Cal. App. 415 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 30, 1921

covenant the property was made the subject of a lien to secure the payment of five dollars per year, the decree, in the absence of any showing by respondent, should in express terms, as provided in section 15 of the act, have established … explicit, and unmistakable terms set forth the conclusion of the court thereon. [9] While under the act reference may be had to records of deeds, nevertheless, as to a title which, as here, under the deeds is limited and qualified

Lucas v. City of Pomona

California Court of Appeal · Jun 13, 2023

Lucas challenged the City’s determination that the Project qualified for an exemption under Guidelines section 15183, subdivision (a), and argued the City’s approval of the ordinance establishing the Project must be vacated … “In interpreting CEQA, we accord the CEQA Guidelines great weight except where they are clearly unauthorized or erroneous.” (Muzzy Ranch Co. v.

Sibert v. Shaver

111 Cal. App. 2d 833 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 20, 1952

Sibert having qualified as administratrix of her husband’s estate in December, 1947, in March, 1948, her attorney *838 examined Shaver in a probate proceeding. … Findings Have Substantial Evidential Support That George and Clarence invented the device together as partners, applied for a patent and made the invention an asset of the partnership is clearly established by the proof and

Campbell v. Parker-Hannifin Corp.

82 Cal. Rptr. 2d 202 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 21, 1999

The public factors, on the other hand, clearly favored granting the motion. … The House Judiciary Committee explained that the language “in its capacity as a manufacturer” is intended to insure that parties who happen to be manufacturers of an aircraft or a component part are not immunized from liability

Meza v. H. Muehlstein & Co., Inc.

176 Cal. App. 4th 969 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 18, 2009

Under the substantial relationship test, Drouet was clearly disqualified from representing Meza in this action. … Whether attorney work product is protected under a “doctrine” or a “privilege,” it is clearly protected by statute. 5 The trial court found that “[t]he evidence . . . establishes that the defendants had a shared interest

People v. QUANG MING TRAN

177 Cal. App. 4th 138 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 31, 2009

While Tran's defense counsel sought to establish Ly's own hope of leniency in return for his testimony, the prosecution sought to establish the fact that Ly was taking his life into his hands in offering his testimony. … The trial court was clearly "within the bounds of reason." B.

Acosta v. Glenfed Development Corp.

28 Cal. Rptr. 3d 92 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 29, 2005

An individual can qualify for a license either in his own capacity or by a qualifying person acting as a responsible managing employee (RME). … A *1299 copartnership or limited partnership can qualify for a license either by a general partner or a qualifying person acting as an RME, and a corporation can qualify by a qualifying person acting as an RME or a responsible

In Re Carmen O.

28 Cal. App. 4th 908 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 29, 1994

Appellant's second position is that the report prepared by the Department should not have been admitted because it is an unreliable and clearly biased report. … The Department argues that it qualifies as a "fresh complaint."

Doe v. City of Modesto CA5

California Court of Appeal · Oct 6, 2016

Sutter Coast Hosp. (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 485, 490 [demurrer is properly sustained when complaint alleges facts that establish an affirmative defense of immunity]; see Bearman v. … California Medical Bd. (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 1588, 1593 [demurrer may be based on defendant’s absolute or qualified immunity].)

Wollmer v. City of Berkeley

179 Cal. App. 4th 933 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 24, 2009

Abuse of discretion is established if the respondent has not proceeded in the manner required by law, the order or decision is not supported by the findings, or the findings are not supported by the evidence.” … Wollmer fails to establish that the City has not proceeded in the manner required by law, that the order or decision is not supported by the findings, or that the findings are not supported by the evidence. (Code Civ.

Steinman v. Scandinavian Faith Mission

35 Cal. App. 2d 95 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 11, 1939

Testator died on November 13, 1937, the executor qualified and the will was duly admitted to probate on December 3, 1937. … It clearly appears from the record herein that Mrs.

Duran v. Cassidy

28 Cal. App. 3d 574 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 8, 1972

Consequently, the courts considering the petitions for mandamus were able to make the determination that the proposed measure was clearly invalid beyond question, readily and with confidence.” … Any possibility of confusion on this point will be resolved by the publicity certain to accompany the proposed measure, should it qualify for the ballot, and in the ballot arguments applicable thereto.

Dupuy v. Board of Education

106 Cal. App. 533 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 17, 1930

The language of this provision clearly indicates the legislative intent to be that irrespective of the delay in the opening of the school term the money for the first six weeks is due the teacher. … As a matter of generally accepted statutory construction, a proviso is used to limit and qualify what immediately precedes it and to expressly negative a construction that would prevail in the absence of the said proviso.

Eith v. Ketelhut

California Court of Appeal · Dec 17, 2018

It disallowed the fees in their entirety because they are “not properly established.” … How can the operation of a commercial vineyard not qualify as commercial use?

People v. Brown

131 Cal. App. 2d 643 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 21, 1955

Proc., § 1870, subd. 6) the conspiracy need be proved only to the extent of establishing prima facie evidence of that fact. (People v. Steccone, 36 Cal.2d 234, 238 [ 223 P.2d 17 ].) … The confession had been admitted as to Stoner only and the jury had been clearly so instructed.

Allen v. California Toll Bridge Authority

68 Cal. App. 3d 340 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 23, 1977

“Of course, such guides are not conclusive, and a clearly erroneous administrative construction will not govern interpretation by the court.” (Cal. M. Express v. St. … The Unemployment Insurance Act was expressly intended to establish a system of unemployment insurance to provide benefits for ‘persons unemployed through no fault of their own, and to reduce involuntary unemployment....’

LeFlore v. Grass Harp Productions, Inc.

57 Cal. App. 4th 824 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 10, 1997

Clearly, there was no oversight of this argument or the evidence offered. We must address the meaning of this statement because we do not read it as a finding that the New Line appellants established the second prong. … Instead, to prevent future litigation and confusion, we think that the entertainment industry could take a lesson from this case: Parties to contracts must be paid properly, security interests must be clearly established

Brown v. Stewart

129 Cal. App. 3d 331 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 26, 1982

To qualify for such financial assistance, the state must qualify by compliance with requirements of the federal law. … Clearly, the statute permits a defendant to introduce evidence of a benefit payable to a plaintiff pursuant to a contract.

Cramer v. Superior Court

29 Cal. Rptr. 3d 673 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 6, 2005

We agree with respondents that under long-established legal doctrines, we may not depart from McNeil. … As such, it is clearly pay for services rendered during the reporter’s workday.”

People v. Felix

82 Cal. Rptr. 2d 701 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 26, 1999

Since defendant placed his character trait for drug possession and use in issue, evidence rebutting the claim he would never possess cocaine was clearly relevant. (People v. … Uncontradicted evidence established Gallagher encountered defendant in an apartment complex experiencing a high level of narcotics activity.