Case law

Gardner v. Board of Park Directors

35 Cal. App. 597 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 14, 1917

It appears to us plain that these boards appointed by the mayor, subject to confirmation by the council, are intended by the charter to consist of persons particularly qualified to render services of a special character and … The board shall establish rules' and regulations for the conduct of its officers and employees and may require adequate bonds from all or any of them, except laborers, for the faithful performance of their duties in such

People v. Holguin CA5

California Court of Appeal · Nov 24, 2025

Both witnesses testified under grants of immunity. … Defendant’s alleged “immunity” from being found to be the gunman.

People v. Sacco

California Court of Appeal · Jun 22, 2026

Harlow (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 485 (Harlow), which stated: “[A] qualifying diagnosis creates a presumption that the defendant’s mental condition contributed to his criminal behavior. … The court acknowledged that Sacco had been diagnosed with a mental disorder, stating, “there’s clearly a diagnosis contained in Dr.

People v. Brown

California Court of Appeal · Jul 31, 2020

But in doing so, he ignores the opinion that speaks most clearly to the issue. People v. … The gang enhancements added to his sentence were unauthorized under clearly established law and must be stricken. Brown was found guilty in count 1 of attempted murder (§§ 187, subd.

King v. Kaplan

94 Cal. App. 2d 697 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 18, 1949

Clearly the foregoing evidence would have supported a finding that defendant was a severe diabetic and the trial court's ruling was erroneous. … At that time, the Legislature established the rule that the guest must prove the defendant host guilty of gross negligence before being allowed a recovery.

People v. Williams

187 Cal. App. 2d 355 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 14, 1960

Whether the conclusion is based upon observation of an act, condition or event or upon sound reason or whether the person forming it is qualified to form it and testify to it can only be established by the examination of … Their evidentiary value clearly outweighed any inflammatory quality they may have had. Hence there was no abuse of discretion in receiving them in evidence. (See People v.

One Technologies, LLC v. Franchise Tax Bd.

California Court of Appeal · Oct 23, 2023

. ____________________________  Proposition 39, enacted by voters in 2012, established a program to promote the creation of clean energy jobs. … Statutes must be upheld unless their unconstitutionality clearly, positively, and unmistakably appears.” [Citations.] If the validity of the measure is “fairly debatable,” it must be sustained. [Citations.]’

Howard Jarvis Taxpayers' Ass'n v. State Board of Equalization

20 Cal. App. 4th 1598 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 14, 1993

On plaintiffs’ motion, we ordered the two appeals consolidated. 3 Discussion I Proposition 13 provides that: “Cities, Counties and special districts, by a two-thirds vote of the qualified electors of such district, may impose … Thus, the most significant consideration in the Rider factor list is clearly and unequivocally met. 6 Coupled with that, there is a predominance on the controlling body of each of the potential Agencies of representatives

City of Martinez v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

102 Cal. Rptr. 2d 588 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 15, 2000

HQ Establishing the right to rehabilitation benefits prior to any final determination of a worker’s permanent disability is consistent with the general rule that consideration should be given to the injured workers’ ‘diminished … The applicable canons of statutory construction, which guide our analysis, are well established. The fundamental rule is to ascertain and effectuate the intent of the Legislature in enacting the statutes. (Moyer v.

Rubin v. Platt Music Co.

92 Cal. App. 203 · California Court of Appeal · May 26, 1928

It is stated in the opinion that “ . . . the evidence was clearly admissible.” … Rolph, supra, where the supreme court implied that it should be qualified to the extent that it must appear that the contracting party elected to hold the agent instead of the principal.

Sherman v. Bryant CA4/2

California Court of Appeal · Nov 19, 2020

Under the Bane Act — unlike under section 1983 — an officer cannot claim qualified immunity. (Venegas v. County of Los Angeles (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1230, 1240-1247.) … They further argue that Officer Bryant was entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that, on these facts, he was being deliberately indifferent to a serious medical need.

Novak v. Low, Ball & Lynch

91 Cal. Rptr. 2d 453 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 28, 1999

Second, contrary to respondents’ assertion, subdivision (f) of section 2860 does not qualify the nature *285 of the relationship between insurer-provided counsel and the insured. … That duty clearly applied and was breached. 5 However, we are mindful that Novak must still prove causation and damages.

Hibernia Securities Co. v. Morey

23 Cal. App. 2d 482 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 17, 1937

given to the Oregon statute of 1905 as amended, and in particular whether the forfeiture of the corporate franchise of the Monarch Company by proclamation of the governor for nonpayment of its license taxes rendered it immune … Eegardless of whatever the rule may have formerly been, it is now a well-established doctrine that the property of a corporation, including rights of contract and choses in action, upon dissolution of the corporation, become

Metcalf v. Drew

75 Cal. App. 2d 711 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 8, 1946

as such trustee, and at the time of the commencement of the action was qualified and acting trustee in bankruptcy of the estate of said bankrupt corporation, the complaint alleged that plaintiff, since his appointment as … Under circumstances such as we have here, clearly showing as they do that the judgment was satisfied against the will of appellant Charlesworth, section 1049 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be invoked to impair or destroy

Vowels v. Witt

149 Cal. App. 2d 257 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 19, 1957

Clearly, most of the above items of which appellants complain, were included as part of the costs and were specifically excluded from the classification of overhead costs by the contract. … Respondents presented evidence to establish that the costs of construction plus 10 per cent amounted to $89,308.22.

Adoption of Michelle

44 Cal. App. 3d 699 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 20, 1975

unreasonableness, the arbitrariness and the caprice, lie precisely with this extraordinary emphasis on a single negative factor in the face of remarkably unanimous opinion that by all other standards the appellees are outstandingly qualified … The first consideration above clearly applies to the first few years.

Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal · Jul 26, 2018

At page 5 of the slip opinion, in the first full paragraph beginning with “At the hearing on the motion for summary adjudication,” add the word “clearly” so the first sentence reads as follows: … The trial court explained, “PG&E was aware of the risk and the need for those inspecting or removing trees to be qualified. Its contracts required ACRT and Trees[, Inc.] to use qualified personnel.

State ex rel. Standard Elevator Co. v. West Bay Builders, Inc.

197 Cal. App. 4th 963 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 22, 2011

Thus, a qui tam plaintiff’s action dismissed under the public disclosure bar is clearly frivolous where the plaintiff’s claim that he qualified as a proper relator “clearly'had no reasonable chance of success.” … Plaintiff Standard’s claim that it qualified as a proper qui tarn plaintiff “clearly had no reasonable chance of success.” (Vuyyuru, supra, 555 F.3d at p. 356 .) Standard’s CFCA claim was clearly frivolous.

Emma Corp. v. Inglewood Unified School District

8 Cal. Rptr. 3d 213 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 6, 2004

As will be established *1021 below, the facts are undisputed.” … “(c) To provide all qualified bidders with a fair opportunity to enter the bidding process, thereby stimulating competition in a manner conducive to sound fiscal practices.

People v. Shanea J.

150 Cal. App. 3d 831 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 11, 1984

Nor is the conclusion altered by the classifications and presumptions established by W & IC section 707. … Breed and Rios clearly establish that a minor is placed in jeopardy as soon as a properly convened adjudicatory hearing is held in juvenile court.