Case law

Aalgaard v. Merchants National Bank, Inc.

224 Cal. App. 3d 674 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 10, 1990

The question of whether the manager’s privilege is absolute (and thus requiring the instant individual defendants to show only that they occupied such a position with defendant Bank) or qualified (requiring them to establish … With this as their purpose, the privilege remains intact even if it is merely qualified and not absolute.

People v. Dorsey

43 Cal. App. 3d 953 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 16, 1974

In these cases, the mode and time of preparation of the records clearly would be relevant to their basic trustworthiness and, hence, their admissibility. … not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule ... if: “(a) The writing was made in the regular course of a business; “(b) The writing was made at or near the time of the act, condition, or event; “(c) The custodian or other qualified

Conservatorship of S.A.

California Court of Appeal · Jul 19, 2018

(Conservatorship of Deidre B. (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1306, 1312 [“The reestablishment hearing is conducted according to the same rules that govern the initial establishment of a conservatorship”].) … But the trial court considered these arguments, reviewed the records, and found the PHF records were “clearly the reports of persons and staff, licensed psychiatric technicians, . . . who are reporting [S.A.’s] observed conduct

Jones v. Ayers

212 Cal. App. 2d 646 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 5, 1963

Viewing the evidence in the best light for appellant the following facts were established at the trial. … Sloss (1952) 38 Cal.2d 399 [ 240 P.2d 575 ], is enlightening upon this issue: the ease holds that the guest statute immunizes the ‘ “person legally liable for the conduct of such driver” ’ from a vicarious liability to the

People v. Williams

187 Cal. App. 2d 143 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 7, 1960

After establishing this preliminary showing as to the voluntariness of appellant’s confessions, the prosecution offered them in evidence. … Trout (1960), 54 Cal.2d 576 [ 6 Cal.Rptr. 759 , 354 P.2d 231 ]), and while we believe that there clearly rests with “the trial judge . . .

Diego v. City of Los Angeles

California Court of Appeal · Sep 14, 2017

Thus, the instructions and verdict form clearly explained that the jury must find that the Officers’ race was a substantial factor in the City’s employment decisions. … We cannot say whether the jury’s verdict would have been different if this concept had been fully and clearly explained in the instructions.

Major v. Memorial Hospitals Assn.

84 Cal. Rptr. 2d 510 · California Court of Appeal · May 3, 1999

“The decision in question is clearly final and is adjudicatory rather than legislative in character.” (Anton v. San Antonio Community Hosp., supra, 19 Cal.3d at p. 815 .) … That does not mean this process is immune from review. However, this review is much more circumscribed.

Berardi v. Superior Court

57 Cal. Rptr. 3d 170 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 6, 2007

In support of this motion, Berardi claimed the prosecution had failed to disclose that it had discussed immunity with Tong, and it had failed to correct Tong’s preliminary hearing testimony denying any immunity discussions … If so, the defendant has established the requisite substantial prejudice and is entitled to dismissal of the indictment. 10 III.

People v. Zepeda CA5

California Court of Appeal · Jun 16, 2014

A pointed object may qualify as ‘sharp.’ This appeal does not require us to define all ways in which an instrument may be ‘sharp.’ … Next, we note the prosecutor does not have authority to grant a defendant immunity; only the trial court has the authority to grant immunity. (§ 1324; People v.

GMS Properties, Inc. v. Superior Court of Fresno County

219 Cal. App. 2d 407 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 16, 1963

On January 13, 1961, GMS Properties, Inc., relinquished all rights to do business in the State of California, and since has neither qualified nor done business in the State of California.” … It is said in 49 American Law Reports 2d 1040: “It is well established that a judgment for a defendant which is not on the merits does not bar him from maintaining another action on the same cause of action.

Carrau v. Marvin Lumber & Cedar Co.

112 Cal. Rptr. 2d 869 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 26, 2001

Carrau produced no evidence of that expense, and the jury’s verdict clearly was not based on an estimate of that expense. … Carrau’s failure to object or to seek a qualifying instruction waived the error.

California Disability Services Assn. v. Bargmann

California Court of Appeal · Jul 31, 2020

The regulation clearly defines the term as “[m]andated service adjustments due to changes in, or additions to” enumerated legal authorities. … (a) [“The Industrial Welfare Commission may establish exemptions . . . .”]; see also Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 11040 [wage order specifying duty requirements that qualify an employee for exempt status].)

Faria v. Regents of the University of California CA1/4

California Court of Appeal · Mar 18, 2025

It also concluded that, as the Regents argued, Faria’s full performance amounted to the mere payment of money and so did not qualify as an exception to the statute of frauds. … These cases establish that, regardless of how Faria has characterized his negligence causes of action, they are barred by government immunity under Government Code sections 818.8 and 822.2.

People v. Creighton

57 Cal. App. 3d 314 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 16, 1976

The record, *328 however, does not support a theory that Catherine’s hearsay statements to Joan to qualify for admissibility under the prior-consistent-statement exception to the hearsay rule set forth in Evidence Code sections … In the case at bench, as in Kazee , the other-crimes evidence admitted against defendant clearly violated the exclusionary rule for character-trait evidence (Evid. Code, § 1101, subd.

Fierro v. State Bd. of Control

191 Cal. App. 3d 735 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 30, 1987

Further, they unpersuasively claim public policy requires us to establish a rule analagous to the collateral source doctrine adopted in tort cases in determining whether restitution should be paid for crime victims pursuant … Thus, a finite pool of money is available to which all crime victims who qualify may apply.

Kelly v. Kelly

75 Cal. App. 2d 408 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 18, 1946

Thompson, a qualified psychiatrist, testified that he examined defendant on April 3, and April 10, 1943; that he found no evidence of mental disorder. … The law with regard to the power of the court in such circumstances is well established. The introduction of additional evidence resulting from any change in the status of the parties in no sense establishes a “rule.”

People v. Bowen CA1/3

California Court of Appeal · Apr 30, 2014

The testimony of two percipient witnesses established defendant’s participation in the attempted robbery and the stills from the video of the offense established the sequence of events, even if they did not clearly establish … This evidence does not clearly establish that Lacy was an accomplice but simply gives rise to conflicting inferences about whether he played a role in the crime.

People v. Landau

214 Cal. App. 4th 1 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 7, 2013

At no time on either occasion did appellant seek an evidentiary hearing to establish what he alleged in the motion. … Clearly appellant’s interest in being free of confinement is of primary importance. The delay of which appellant may claim, however, is relatively minimal.

City of Long Beach v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

23 Cal. Rptr. 3d 782 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 31, 2005

of pumping gas and the potential of lead from pistol qualifying. … It may, however, be controverted only in a clearly specified and limited manner: by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) the primary site of the cancer has been established; and (2) that the carcinogen to which the employee

People v. Ohman

67 Cal. App. 2d 467 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 4, 1945

It was stipulated that he was “well qualified” as such an expert. He testified he had compared the signatures on the various documents signed in the presence of Mr. Abbott and Mr. … Frassi, which clearly established the corpus delicti of the crimes charged against the defendant.