Case law

People v. Main

75 Cal. App. 471 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 8, 1925

We are accustomed, in criminal cases, to regard the presumption of innocence as universally placing the burden of proof upon the People to establish every essential element of the offense charged, beyond a reasonable doubt … It is plain that the state' could not qualify as an estoppel asserter, based upon any claim of its own against the defendant; the representations were not made to it, nor has it parted with anything or in any way changed

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.”

Maglica v. Maglica

78 Cal. Rptr. 2d 101 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 28, 1998

The instructions were insufficiently qualified. … Sheldon (1988) 46 Cal.3d 267, 275 [ 250 Cal.Rptr. 254 , 758 P.2d 582 ]) and that, if it is not too harsh to say it, was clearly the substance of Claire and Anthony’s relationship. They had a common law marriage.

Jordan v. Allstate Insurance

11 Cal. Rptr. 3d 169 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 18, 2004

The burden is on the insured to establish that the claim is within the basic scope of coverage and on the insurer to establish that the claim is specifically excluded. [Citation.]” (MacKinnon v. Truck Ins. … This language clearly did not limit coverage to actual collapse but necessarily embraced imminent collapse.

People v. K.D.

California Court of Appeal · Apr 21, 2025

Wright reported that defendant had put her “full effort” into his testing, and he concluded that she “clearly” met diagnostic criteria for “intellectual disability-moderate.” Dr. … Defendant has not established error here. First, the court did not make a finding about defendant’s county of residence.

People v. Callahan

21 Cal. Rptr. 3d 226 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 16, 2004

This result is consistent with the recognition that trial courts are uniquely qualified to evaluate the performance of trial counsel. … Regarding counsel’s failure to call Callahan to testify, the court concluded, “the defense had no reasonable course other than to call the defendant, and ... it was clear the benefits of that course would clearly outweigh

Rando v. Harris

California Court of Appeal · Aug 21, 2014

Mosk, supra, 197 Cal.App.2d at p. 645 [“Appellant must demonstrate that the Attorney General’s refusal to sue was an extreme and clearly indefensible abuse of his discretion”].) … Firefighters highlighted the “must” language in section 803, but then explained, “‘this suggestion of a mandatory duty is negated by the qualifying language (“has reason to believe”).

Lackner v. North

135 Cal. App. 4th 1188 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 24, 2006

Additionally, the court found Bender, Chico, and Oroville were immune from liability (Gov. … This request clearly falls within the purpose of the 75-day requirement.

Scally v. W. T. Garratt & Co.

11 Cal. App. 138 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 21, 1909

Nor is this court any better qualified than a jury to determine such amount. … If the trial court in that case had clearly instructed the jury that, under the facts as established by the evidence, they should not consider the question of exemplary damages, as such question was not involved there, the

People v. Demoray

5 Cal. App. 3d 127 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 6, 1970

It was then stipulated that a qualified handwriting expert would testify that he had compared the handwriting on the two checks with that on the 1966 exemplar and that all three documents were written by the same person. … Once that is established — as was plainly done here — the trial judge must give opportunity, however closely confined, to the accused to prove that a substantial portion of the case against him was a fruit of the poisonous

Morehouse v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

154 Cal. App. 3d 323 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 10, 1984

The workers’ compensation judge (WCJ) concluded that the evidence clearly established an act of discrimination by Goodyear on the “dual motives” of barring reemployment of Morehouse because of his industrial injury claim … On reconsideration, the Board acknowledged that the WCJ had found that the evidence established a discriminatory act by respondent Goodyear.

Hoffman v. State Bar of California

6 Cal. Rptr. 3d 592 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 21, 2003

This time he abandoned his free speech claim, but pursued claims based on the privileges and immunities and equal protection clauses of the California Constitution. … His real complaint is with the classifications established in the first instance.

Toyota of Visalia, Inc. v. Department of Motor Vehicles

155 Cal. App. 3d 315 · California Court of Appeal · May 2, 1984

The trial court below agreed with the dealers’ contention that it was the Legislature’s intent to benefit aggrieved dealers by establishing the appellate process described above. … relevant to this appeal. 9 See footnote 1, ante. 10 See footnote 1, ante. 11 It was found that the vehicles were often not on the lot and the financial terms made it “nearly impossible” for interested purchasers or lessees to qualify

Doe v. Sutherland Healthcare Solutions CA2/7

California Court of Appeal · Dec 6, 2021

As such, the County asserted, it is immune from liability for common law negligence. 5. … Plaintiffs Established Triable Issues of Fact Regarding Actual Damages and Causation for Purposes of Their Negligence Claim To establish a prima facie case of negligence, a plaintiff must prove the

People v. Coffee

52 Cal. App. 118 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 28, 1921

But in this state the courts have clearly distinguished between the common law and the statutory definition, and have pointed out that the latter is much more comprehensive than the former. (People v. … The term “house” is used in the statute and the addition of the qualifying expression “chicken” does not detract from the force of the information in stating the offense of burglary.

Sylva v. Board of Supervisors

208 Cal. App. 3d 648 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 31, 1989

In 1939 the Legislature passed “An act to establish an Elections Code, thereby consolidating and revising the law relating to elections . . . .” (1939 Stats., ch. 26, p. 49.) … In section 6430 the words “last preceding gubernatorial election” clearly refer to the last gubernatorial general election because a “primary election” is also referred to in the statute and construed differently.

Physicians for Social etc. v. Dept. of Toxic Substances Control

California Court of Appeal · Mar 4, 2026

While the term “prevailing party” is synonymous with “successful party,” it is not always necessary for a plaintiff to obtain a judgment in its favor to qualify as a successful party. … They contend that because the draft in which DTSC signaled its intent to change course in its CEQA analysis was dated February 2023, three months before our opinion was issued, DTSC clearly modified its behavior as a result

Young v. County of Marin

195 Cal. App. 3d 863 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 26, 1987

“It is clearly established that a State may not discharge an employee on a basis that infringes that employee’s constitutionally protected interest in freedom of speech. [Citation.]” (Rankin v. … Thus, it is clear that although Government Code section 815 provides that public entities are not liable for injuries “[e]xcept as otherwise provided by statute,” they are not immune from constitutionally created claims.

Neptune Society Corp. v. Longanecker

194 Cal. App. 3d 1233 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 17, 1987

In addition, the evidence clearly establishes that Mr. Denning did not have any propriety interest in Proteus at the time of the alleged assignment. In fact, Mr. … Moreover, it was never *1243 clearly demonstrated at trial that Denning had the authority to make the alleged assignment.