Case law

Ass'n of Graduate Student Employees v. Public Employment Relations Board

6 Cal. App. 4th 1133 · California Court of Appeal · May 22, 1992

To qualify to practice medicine in California, these individuals (house-staff) must participate in an approved residency program. … But the test contradicts the test established by Regents.

Coastside Fishing Club v. California Fish & Game Commission

215 Cal. App. 4th 397 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 15, 2013

The Legislature declared that "California's marine protected areas (MPAs) were established on a piecemeal basis rather than according to a coherent plan and sound scientific guidelines.[1] Many of these MPAs lack clearly … Thus, the marine ecological reserves that former Fish and Game Code section 1580 authorized the DFG and the Commission to establish qualify as MPAs within the meaning of the MLPA because their purpose was to protect and

Cal. Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. City of West Hollywood

78 Cal. Rptr. 2d 591 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 29, 1998

The record here clearly shows that none of these possible “indicia of intent” establishes a legislative intention to preempt in this case. … There has been no serious attempt to establish that this test establishes an implied preemption in this case. (Cf. Suter v.

People v. Gragg

216 Cal. App. 3d 32 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 29, 1989

Solorzano testified at the trial under grant of derivative use immunity. … In this case the trial court clearly and expressly stated the hospital incident count of which Gragg was acquitted would play no part whatsoever in the sentencing choices.

Hennelly v. Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'n

102 Cal. App. 2d 754 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 8, 1951

The evidence available to him may serve only to establish the existence of certain primary facts that are logically’Connected with the material facts. … Clearly, the innocent purchaser did not know and could not foresee that plaintiff, -in July, 1948,- would assert that there had been no delivery of the deed from plaintiff to her mother. (Safeway Stores, Inc., v.

People v. Johnny R.

33 Cal. App. 4th 1579 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 12, 1995

Clearly, the Fifth Amendment ban against double jeopardy applies to juvenile delinquency proceedings. (Richard M. v. Superior Court (1971) 4 Cal.3d 370, 375 [ 93 Cal.Rptr. 752 , 482 P.2d 664 ].) … Insisting that he be informed in the accusatory pleading of the charges against him, on the other hand, fully satisfies a well established fundamental of due process.” (Id. at p. 370.)

In re Oliveras

California Court of Appeal · Jul 15, 2024

The agency’s interpretation of the phrase “computer fraud or abuse” in CCR sections 3040 and 3041.3 pursuant to Operations Manual section 49020.18.1—i.e., as defined by Penal Code section 502—is not “ ‘clearly erroneous or … Here, the question is whether placing a SIM card containing pornography into his tablet could qualify as “add[ing] . . . data” to his tablet “without permission.”

Wilmot v. Contra Costa County Employee's Retirement Association

California Court of Appeal · Feb 5, 2021

It has already been established that the Pension Reform Act had a constitutionally permissible purpose, and collecting public pay for criminality certainly qualifies an abuse or loophole that the Legislature could end. … These factors are clearly outweighed by those supporting a nonpunitive determination.

Carney v. Santa Cruz Women Against Rape

221 Cal. App. 3d 1009 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 27, 1990

She stated that when she regained consciousness, she was in the front seat of a vehicle with her head in the lap of one man, her clothes undone, and both of the men were “touching her in what was a clearly sexual manner.” … Manguso , however, involved a qualified privilege under section 47(3) and the instruction was based upon that fact. 3 In this case, both Carney and SCWAR now agree, based upon the holding in Brown v.

Russi v. Superior Court

33 Cal. App. 3d 160 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 29, 1973

The word “property” clearly covers her lease or rental of her apartment. Her right to the occupancy of the apartment is a property right. … To hold that defendant could assert that his wife’s constitutional rights had been violated would be to hold that defendant can immunize his residence from the parole officer’s scrutiny by living with someone else, and thus

People v. Harrison

California Court of Appeal · Dec 11, 2025

He contends his filing of section 1170.91 form petitions as part of his habeas and resentencing petitions was sufficient to meet the statutory requirements of section 1170.91 and establish a prima facie case for relief under … But the additional disjunctive language, if anything, indicates that—cognizant of how Proposition 47 has been interpreted—the Legislature chose to provide even more clearly in section 1170.91 that first-time super strikers

Bergeron v. Dessert Hospital Corp.

221 Cal. App. 3d 146 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 12, 1990

This interest is clearly fundamental. . . .” (Id., at p. 823.) Here, it is undisputed that petitioner’s right to “use” the roster, i.e., to participate thereon, is directly related to the pursuit of his livelihood. … However, although not every responsibility establishes an entitlement, when the responsibility is directly related to the pursuit of a livelihood, then, under Anton , an entitlement is established therefrom.

Pico Citizens Bank v. Tafco Inc.

201 Cal. App. 2d 131 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 9, 1962

Kitto, 100 Cal.App. 302 [ 279 P. 1024 ], wherein expressions of “cancellation” or “rescission” were not construed as the renunciation of any claim for damages for prior breach unless such intention clearly appears. … Plaintiff produced a witness, qualified to so testify, that in his opinion a period of 90 days would have been reasonable under the circumstances.

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 . . .

Fig Garden Park No. 2 Ass'n v. Local Agency Formation Commission

162 Cal. App. 3d 336 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 30, 1984

.” (§ 35006.) 4 Section 35000 clearly expresses the legislative intent to promote orderly development of urban areas and logical formation and expansion of cities to assure that persons living in enclosures within a city … Accordingly, the trial court erred in concluding that the property did not qualify for annexation under section 35150, subdivision (f).

PSC Geothermal Services Co. v. Superior Court

25 Cal. App. 4th 1697 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 17, 1994

Taylor (1947) 329 U.S. 495 [ 91 L.Ed. 451 , 67 S.Ct. 385 ] and established “a qualified privilege for certain materials prepared by an attorney ‘acting for his client in anticipation of litigation.’ [Citation.]” … The public interest is served when charges are brought only when the appropriate cause has been developed and established.

Darden v. Reese

88 Cal. App. 2d 904 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 1, 1948

It clearly appears that he was not interested in acquiring the stock for himself, but did so only for what he understood would be the protection of Reese and upon the promise of Reese that the latter would take the stock … Although Jones, as vice president, and Adams, as assistant secretary, were qualified to receive notice of the levy (Code Civ.

People v. Ungaro

122 Cal. App. 2d 57 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 15, 1953

Appellants contend that the defense of entrapment was established by the evidence. … Appellants’ contention that entrapment was established is not sustainable.

People v. Leonard

California Court of Appeal · Jul 29, 2014

At trial, Jordan and Hanson testified for the prosecution pursuant to grants of immunity. … [citation], in light of a record that demonstrates that the trial court clearly believed that it had no such discretion."].) Here, the record is silent, and the presumption governs.

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].)