Case law

Board of Supervisors v. Dolan

45 Cal. App. 3d 237 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 11, 1975

That policy is restated in Resolution No. 426-73 authorizing the establishment of RAP. … Clearance has its important place; but it will be wastefully costly, except where the existing situation is clearly beyond less drastic treatment or where there is the clear opportunity for a new and better paying use for

Robles v. Chalilpoyil

181 Cal. App. 4th 566 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 27, 2010

petition or free speech under the United States Constitution or the California Constitution in connection with a public issue shall be subject to a special motion to strike, unless the court determines that the plaintiff has established … But to the extent that the cause of action can be said to have arisen from the right of free speech or petition, that right clearly was not being exercised in the litigation on respondents’ behalf.

People v. Magee

217 Cal. App. 2d 443 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 24, 1963

The testimony of Magee and the two Kilkennys clearly establishes it. The statements of all four defendants were a combination of admissions and confessions. … There the evidence disclosed that the force relied upon to establish the robbery was different from that relied upon to establish the assault.

County of Yuba v. Savedra

78 Cal. App. 4th 1311 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 16, 2000

Former section 11355 clearly provides that “[notwithstanding any other provision of law, in any action filed by the district attorney pursuant to sections 11350, 11350.1, or 11475.1, a judgment shall be entered if the defendant … It will be construed as a necessary condition of the statutory provision it qualifies .... [^] ...

Moreno v. Bassi

California Court of Appeal · Jun 8, 2021

section 1194, a provision that clearly would apply in any situation where there was a demand greater than $300. … Neither statute has qualifying language stating how conflicts with other statutes should be resolved.

People v. Montiel

California Court of Appeal · Jun 17, 2019

In our view, the plain language of section 1202.4 establishes two separate bases—one under subdivision (k)(3) and the other under subdivision (k)(4)—on which parents of children who are sexually abused may qualify as victims … Brown (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 398, 418 [“Marsy’s Law clearly demands a broad interpretation protective of victims’ rights”].)

In Re SD

125 Cal. Rptr. 2d 570 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 27, 2002

This type of gap is simply not supportable under established public policy considerations. (See Hartford Acc. etc. Co. v. … Bissell (1874) 49 Cal. 407 [person who held office by appointment of governor retains office and responsibilities until successor is qualified]; 1 Ops.

Monsanto Co. v. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment

California Court of Appeal · Apr 19, 2018

Subdivision (b) provides three additional processes by which a chemical shall be listed: (1) “if in the opinion of the state’s qualified experts it has been clearly shown through scientifically valid testing according to … Thus, a “chemical is known to the state to cause cancer . . . if in the opinion of the state’s qualified experts it has been clearly shown through scientifically valid testing according to generally accepted principles to

The People v. Austin

California Court of Appeal · Sep 12, 2013

Rothgery . . . clearly requires that we reject such an argument.”].) … ‟s credibility was clearly in dispute.

Ruiz v. Herman Weissker, Inc.

29 Cal. Rptr. 3d 641 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 9, 2005

(The evidence in the record does not clearly establish how the circuit became reenergized, but suggests several different possible causes.) … In the absence of persuasive authority to establish that HWI owed Ruiz an affirmative duty to undertake rescue measures, the Estate has not established that the court erred in holding that HWI’s failure to take such measures

Osunde v. Cal. State Teachers' Retirement System CA3

California Court of Appeal · Jan 28, 2026

Osunde also mentions “qualifying immunity” and cites “Pearson v. Callahan, (citation omitted),” albeit with no discussion. Presumably he refers to Pearson v. … Callahan (2009) 555 U.S. 223, in which the United States Supreme Court explained how district courts should evaluate claims of qualified immunity.

Stack v. City of Lemoore

California Court of Appeal · May 3, 2023

As when establishing duty in a general negligence claim, one establishes a condition’s dangerousness (or conversely, its triviality) for a section 835 claim by reference to its reasonably foreseeable use by reasonably careful … “[C]ourts have treated the question of whether a defect is too trivial to qualify as a dangerous condition as distinct from the question of whether the defect is obvious enough to impart constructive notice.”

United Firefighters v. City of Los Angeles

210 Cal. App. 3d 1095 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 26, 1989

Hence, the evidence clearly establishes the escalating cost of living adjustments caused by the ensuing rises in the rate of inflation was not an unforeseen and unforeseeable change in circum *1114 stances. … State Teachers Ass’n. clearly is distinguishable from this case.

Insurance Industry Initiative Campaign Committee v. Eu

203 Cal. App. 3d 961 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 12, 1988

Characterizing the objective of the initiative as “clearly that of reducing and controlling insurance rates,” petitioners assert that section 17 fails to advance that objective. … While that petition was pending, the Secretary of State on June 3 certified that the initiative had qualified for the November 8 ballot.

People v. Kosoff

34 Cal. App. 3d 920 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 29, 1973

The mailing of the package at first class rates did not, however (aside from the asserted effect of the above quoted regulations), immunize it against customs inspection. … Sohnen, supra, 298 F.Supp. 51 , is clearly in point.

Merry v. Coast Community College District

97 Cal. App. 3d 214 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 25, 1979

If plaintiff had raised his state claims in Merry II, they would clearly have been dismissed without prejudice. … If however, the court in the first action would clearly not have had jurisdiction to entertain the omitted theoiy or ground (or, having jurisdiction, would clearly have declined to exercise it as a matter of discretion),

People v. Miller

56 Cal. App. 472 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 16, 1922

The district attorney then, over defendant’s objection, questioned her as to other parts of such former testimony tending to qualify that read by counsel for defendant and make it consistent with that given by her on the … Proposed instruction No. 23 is so clearly argumentative as to merit no discussion.

Turner v. Smith CA1/2

California Court of Appeal · Apr 26, 2023

In Barro, the defendant’s prior conviction for mayhem, which had been dismissed under Penal Code section 1385, could not qualify as a strike under the Three Strikes law. (Id. at p. 64.) … It is well-established that the fact that Turner’s state law claims were preserved for state court litigation means that defendants cannot prevail on an argument that the claims are barred in state court by the doctrine of

G. B. v. Lackner

80 Cal. App. 3d 64 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 20, 1978

Male genitals have to be considered more than just skin, one would think. *71 The definition relied upon by the Director to establish that the surgery must be considered cosmetic requires that the alteration (of the skin) … It is clearly impossible to conclude that transsexual surgery is cosmetic surgery, even using the definition relied on by the Director. Drs.

People v. McCowan

85 Cal. App. 3d 675 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 29, 1978

Reasonably able cross-examiners frequently cause them to change or qualify identification testimony. *680 Appellant’s instructions are argumentative, redundant or otherwise objectionable and were properly rejected. … identified someone prior to trial, he is not likely to change his testimony at the trial.” 3 Testimony of appellant’s mother about a misunderstanding between herself and Shear, which might have biased Shear toward her son, clearly