Case law

L.R. v. A.L.

205 Cal. App. 4th 455 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 24, 2012

In closing arguments, the parties disagreed on whether father qualified as a Kelsey S. father. … Reiterating that father was clearly a Kelsey S. father, the court nonetheless found him “incapable” of parenting minor.

People v. Connor

270 Cal. App. 2d 630 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 13, 1969

He says, “They alluded to defendant’s confession of April 6, 1966, among other things, and told me that the evidence, including the confession, clearly made the case a death penalty case.” … Based upon the foregoing evidence, all available to the *638 police without the admissions of appellant, one could conclude they establish a first degree murder.

People v. Gray

91 Cal. App. 3d 545 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 4, 1979

The record indicates that she testified under a grant of immunity, admitted a prior felony conviction for assault with a deadly weapon and did not identify defendant until after one of his confessions had been obtained. … The uncontroverted evidence indicates that the injuries to her jaw prevented her from clearly communicating to the officers.

Barker v. California-Western States Life Ins. Co.

252 Cal. App. 2d 768 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 24, 1967

Green who made the hlood test for alcoholic content on Barker’s blood was qualified to make such a test and to express an opinion. Mr. Burd testified, however, that Mr. … Be that as it may, the record clearly indicates that respondents’ counsel called the court’s and appellant’s attention to the fact that appellant’s objections were limited to constitutional questions and did not include the

Fox Searchlight Pictures, Inc. v. Paladino

106 Cal. Rptr. 2d 906 · California Court of Appeal · May 22, 2001

Fox Failed to Establish a Conflict Between Paladino and Her Own Attorneys. … Fox’s Prayer That Paladino Be Ordered to Turn Over Allegedly Confidential Material Does Not Immunize Its Suit from a Motion to Strike Under Section 425.16.

People v. Tice

California Court of Appeal · Mar 14, 2023

Clearly, if the meaning of “ ‘local detention facility’ ” cannot be clearly ascertained from the plain words of the statute and traditional extrinsic aids, it is unlikely that these same tools of statutory interpretation … Defendant concedes that semen qualifies as a bodily fluid within the meaning of section 243.9, subdivision (b), but challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to establish that the substance he sprayed on C.P. was semen

Mesecher v. County of San Diego

9 Cal. App. 4th 1677 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 1, 1992

To hold otherwise would destroy the rule . . . which clearly prohibits the upsetting of a jury verdict by assailing these subjective mental processes. … Krouse said juror declarations are admissible to impeach a verdict where the declarations establish “an express agreement” to violate the court’s instructions “or extensive discussion evidencing an implied agreement to that

Planned Parenthood v. Wilson

234 Cal. App. 3d 1662 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 10, 1991

The party challenging the injunction has the burden to clearly show an abuse of discretion. (IT Corp. v. County of Imperial, supra, 35 Cal.3d at p. 69; see generally, Chico Feminist Women’s Health Center v. … of the parking lot buffer *1674 between the thoroughfare and the store entrance, effectively immunizing the supermarket from on-the-spot public criticism.

Diaz v. Carcamo

182 Cal. App. 4th 339 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 25, 2010

Camargo's heirs sued the dairy, asserting it was directly liable to them on a theory of negligent hiring, since the dairy had failed to determine whether the trucking company and Camargo were qualified to operate the tractor … Unlike Armenia , while Sugar Transport's concession of liability for Carcamo's driving established the fact of its liability, it did not establish the degree of its liability for noneconomic damages. There was no error.

Roberts Distributing Co. v. Kaye-Halbert Corp.

126 Cal. App. 2d 664 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 23, 1954

The general rule, when a question is to be determined from prepared data, is that where possible the data to establish a fact must be laid before the court. … Over plaintiff’s objection, Kaye, defendant’s president, was asked whether there is an established practice for an adjustment in the advertising fund when sets are returned by a distributor.

People v. Griffin

15 Cal. App. 3d 442 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 22, 1971

The People, of course, may rely on circumstantial evidence to connect the defendant with the commission of the crime charged and to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed it. (People v. … Quite apart from the fact that there was no assertion of misconduct in the trial court, each and every of appellant’s assignments of misconduct are based upon arguments which are clearly contradicted by the law of the case

Union of Needletrades, Industrial & Textile Employees v. Superior Court

56 Cal. App. 4th 996 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 25, 1997

Clearly, these rules on their face pass constitutional muster. … Schwartz is clearly distinguishable from this matter.

Ford v. The Silver F

California Court of Appeal · Apr 8, 2025

File (1970) 3 Cal.3d 389, 393 [laws enacted after the execution of an agreement are not ordinarily deemed to become part of the agreement unless the language clearly indicates this intention].) … Here, both the waiver and the exclusionary clause use the term “representative,” but only the waiver adds the qualifying phrase “on behalf of others.”

Fletcher v. A. J. Industries, Inc.

266 Cal. App. 2d 313 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 2, 1968

[e]; see Ballantine, California’s 1943 Statute as to Directors’ Litigation Expenses: An Exclusive Remedy for Indemnification of Directors, Officers and Employees (1943) 31 Cal.L.Rev. 515, 517), and no decisions qualify its … This is clearly true where the litigation has gone to trial and judgment. (See New Capital for Small Businesses, Inc. v. Saunders (1963) 215 Cal.App.2d 728, 733 [ 30 Cal.Rptr. 563 ].)

California Pear Growers Ass'n v. Herspring

60 Cal. App. 503 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 22, 1923

a short-lived fruit, the picking of which could not be regulated by its owners; it had to be shipped as it fell during the season when it was available ; and without the experience that the business required, without an established … Herspring did the very best he could under the circumstances, but his plant does not seem to have been qualified to handle such a large amount of fruit as came to him under the terms of his contract.”

Daniels v. Robbins

182 Cal. App. 4th 204 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 24, 2010

The record clearly supports an inference that Young brought the underlying case with malice; his personal relationship with and alleged threats to Karl suggest his subjective intent in pursuing the baseless underlying suit … A special motion to strike a SLAPP action, codified in . . . section 425.16, provides a procedural remedy to gain an early dismissal of a lawsuit or a cause of action that qualifies as a SLAPP.” (Slaney v. Ranger Ins.

Steven N. v. Priscilla C.

California Court of Appeal · Mar 26, 2026

The court explained in part, “Clearly, there is a dispute as to the VDOP. There is clearly a request to set aside, which is pending. And there’s [a] dispute as to that.” … ‘Biological fatherhood does not, in and of itself, qualify a man for presumed father status under section 7611.

People v. Tatum

73 Cal. Rptr. 3d 718 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 24, 2008

Consequently, the trial court ruled, the District Attorney needed to establish “good cause” for the delay. … (a), (b))—is a qualifying offense under the MDO Act, 12 a question that a psychiatrist (unlike a trial court) is ill-suited to resolve.

LAOSD Asbestos Cases

California Court of Appeal · Jan 23, 2023

When the moving party is a defendant, it must show that the plaintiff cannot establish at least one element of the cause of action. (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 853.) … Under the current law, ‘[i]f the subject matter of the questioning is clearly stated, the burden is on the entity, not the examiner, to produce the right witnesses.

Middlecoff v. Middlecoff

199 Cal. App. 2d 22 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 9, 1962

Estate of Robinson, 192 Cal.App.2d 847, 851 [ 13 Cal.Rptr. 842, 844 ], “But where, as here, the interest of the beneficiary under the earlier will is expressly challenged, the court may nevertheless require such person to establish … It is obvious that Henry Hubbard Middlecoff, the general guardian of Robert Fitch Middlecoff, has an adverse *30 interest to the incompetent; that he is therefore disqualified to act for him; and that an independent and qualified