Case law

Coe v. City of San Diego

3 Cal. App. 5th 772 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 28, 2016

, has not established the City deprived her of due process of law. … Such boards are vested with a high discretion and its abuse 22 must appear very clearly before the courts will interfere.' " ' [Citation.]

People v. Harvest

84 Cal. App. 4th 631 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 31, 2000

The collection procedures for a restitution order are clearly meant to be civil. (See Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (h); cf. Helvering v. … Defendant contends these circumstances establish that the request for restitution made at his resentencing was untimely and ought not to have been acted upon according to “legal doctrines of waiver, estoppel, and laches.”

People v. Bell

241 Cal. App. 4th 315 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 15, 2015

Defendants contend there was insufficient evidence to establish this element. We disagree. … Sections 30510 and 30515 set forth various firearms and categories of firearms that qualify as assault weapons.

In re Marcus C., Jr.

California Court of Appeal · Feb 21, 2017

She reported that the child was up to date with his immunizations. Mother said that Father smokes marijuana but not in the child‟s presence. … These facts were clearly within the personal knowledge of each of the parents as they were facts concerning the parents‟ own actions and failures to act.

City of Dublin v. County of Alameda

14 Cal. App. 4th 264 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 18, 1993

Preemption by implication occurs if the subject is so completely covered by general law that it clearly has become exclusively a matter of state concern. … But that fact does not establish that the charge is a special tax.

People v. Wiener

29 Cal. App. 4th 1300 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 28, 1994

Whatever the scope of the ‘right to receive’ referred to in Stanley , it is not so broad as to immunize the dealings in obscenity in which Reidel engaged here [distributing it by mail]— dealings that Roth held unprotected … Outside the realm of the Privacy Initiative, Bloom and Luros clearly preclude a successful argument that a distributor of obscene matter derives any protection from regulation out of the right of the individual to possess

People v. Heaps

California Court of Appeal · Feb 2, 2026

In the words of our high court: “ ‘Insufficient command of the English language to allow full understanding of the words employed in instructions and full participation in deliberations clearly render[s] a juror “unable to … They were occasioned by the other jurors’ concern about whether Juror No. 15 was qualified to serve as a juror. Moore v.

Duffy v. State Personnel Board

232 Cal. App. 3d 1 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 9, 1991

It remains for us to determine whether the Department’s practice of letting the Roman Catholic Church decide whether a priest is theologically and ecclesiastically qualified to serve as a Catholic chaplain excessively *17 … The First Amendment would just as clearly prohibit the Department from making such determinations regarding the threshold qualifications of priests seeking to serve as Catholic prison chaplains.

BBBB Bonding Corp. v. Caldwell

California Court of Appeal · Dec 29, 2021

(Italics added.) 17 not qualify as a retail installment contract under subdivision (a)(1) of section 1799.90 (see § 1802.6 [defining retail installment contracts]), but may qualify … Under the safe harbor doctrine, “[t]o forestall an action under the unfair competition law, another provision must actually ‘bar’ the action or clearly permit the conduct.” (Id. at p. 183.)

People v. New Penn Mines, Inc.

212 Cal. App. 2d 667 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 5, 1963

The act establishes a state water pollution control board and a series of regional boards. (Wat. Code, § 13010-13011, 13040-13041.) … Section 13080, added in 1959, qualifies this concept in a limited respect and confirms it in others. For the first time it injects authorization for summary court action for pollution control.

People v. Twiggs

223 Cal. App. 2d 455 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 17, 1963

The corpus delicti of the offenses charged was clearly established. … Prado, 190 Cal.App.2d 374, 377 [ 12 Cal.Rptr. 141 ].) “ This court can take judicial notice. ... that it would be difficult to find in California any lawyers more experienced or better qualified in defending criminal eases

Magan Medical Clinic v. Cal. State Bd. of Med. Examiners

249 Cal. App. 2d 124 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 3, 1967

A statute is presumed to be constitutional and the burden in this ease is on the plaintiffs to establish clearly that it is unconstitutional. … Anyone else could own such establishments. . . .’)

Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc. v. Olaes Enterprises, Inc.

167 Cal. App. 4th 466 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 9, 2008

This exception for frivolous claims comports with the Uniform Commercial Code commentary and policy rationales discussed above, while giving necessary effect to the statutory qualifier “rightful.” … sufficiently similar to the instant infringement claim that it provided the requisite notice of the “defect” in the goods offered for sale by Olaes; and (iii) that PacSun’s knowledge of SNCL’s trademark immunizes Olaes,

People v. Lopez

California Court of Appeal · Mar 13, 2020

as clearly shown.” … Since the felonious conduct required by section 182.5 was conclusively established, the error in failing to instruct on potential liability for merely benefitting from such conduct was clearly harmless.

Verga v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

70 Cal. Rptr. 3d 871 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 25, 2008

Even so, the WCAB’s statutory interpretation is entitled to great weight unless it is clearly erroneous. (Boehm & Associates v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 513, 515-516 [ 90 Cal.Rptr.2d 486 ].) … And psychiatric injuries arising from nondiscriminatory, good faith personnel decisions do not qualify for compensation. (§ 3208.3, subd. (h).)

People v. Gonzales CA6

California Court of Appeal · Mar 27, 2015

The Supreme Court’s longstanding “penalty cases” jurisprudence established this rule decades ago. (Uniformed Sanitation Men Ass’n v. … Chavez was a civil action involving qualified immunity in which the issue was whether a police officer who allegedly compelled statements from the plaintiff could be held liable for violating the plaintiff’s civil rights.

People v. McCullough

100 Cal. App. 3d 169 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 20, 1979

The trial court erred in qualifying an instruction on circumstantial evidence. (CALJIC No. 2.01.) 4. … Clearly, then, what the relevant portion of section 207 was designed to proscribe was the forcible carrying away of a person.

People v. Claxton

129 Cal. App. 3d 638 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 2, 1982

It is also an obvious denial of due process to offer immunity to a witness on the condition that the witness’ testimony produce a conviction. (People v. … Harrington’s remarks to the police qualify as a declaration against penal interest.

Devereaux v. Frazier Mountain Park & Fisheries Co.

248 Cal. App. 2d 323 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 2, 1967

We are satisfied the documents were qualified for admission upon another ground. … However, the photograph shows a large area in addition to the lot; clearly visible are at least six different buildings, a valley, roads and hills.

Deacon v. Bryans

88 Cal. App. 322 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 13, 1928

Having qualified as to his familiarity with her signature, he said that the plaintiff had shown him four notes, each bearing the signature of Helene D. Henrich. … It is one which clearly arose in the decision of the issues presented on the second count in this case and in weighing the evidence offered in plaintiff’s attempt to establish it.