Case law

People v. Edwards

California Court of Appeal · Oct 15, 2015

She testified under a grant of immunity. She was good friends with Yanet Flores-Garcia, another one of the females who came to the party from East Palo Alto. … “A person is qualified to testify as an expert if he has special knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education sufficient to qualify him as an expert on the subject to which his testimony relates.” (Evid.

Desmarais v. Drummond

149 Cal. App. 4th 46 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 29, 2007

They have established a right to appellate relief if they have demonstrated that the trial court was obliged to accord them that status. . … Appellants’ argument could be reconciled with Hsu only by qualifying “final” to mean, “final for purposes of a particular lawsuit.”

People v. Mauch

163 Cal. App. 4th 669 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 3, 2008

The Legislature’s use of the disjunctive “or” establishes that subdivision (b) only applies to offenses, known as “wobblers” (People v. … Because the Legislature has not elsewhere expressly declared any of these particular felonies may qualify as misdemeanors, section 18 creates, to coin a phrase, “stealth wobblers.”

Paulsen v. Leadbetter

267 Cal. App. 2d 148 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 4, 1968

It is evident that the letter in the present case is clearly insufficient as a memorandum of employment. … We conclude that the deposit receipt in the present case does not qualify as a sufficient memorandum upon which to predicate the recovery of a broker’s commission.

People v. Stanphill

170 Cal. App. 4th 61 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 14, 2009

For purposes of the exception, a statement may qualify as spontaneous if it is undertaken without deliberation or reflection. [Citation.] … It is an open question as to whether the court must perform the balancing test when evidence is admissible under an established hearsay exception.

JONES & MATSON v. Hall

66 Cal. Rptr. 3d 872 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 12, 2007

[ft] ‘It is well established that a reviewing court starts with the presumption that the record contains evidence to sustain every finding of fact.’ [Citations.]” (Foreman & Clark Corp. v. … Cross-appeal Defendants Hall, Calhoun, Beeman and Gonzales argue on cross-appeal that the trial court should have granted their motions for nonsuit on the grounds that (1) defendants had qualified immunity; (2) plaintiffs

Lagiss v. County of Contra Costa

223 Cal. App. 2d 77 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 6, 1963

Constitution which provides, in essence, that no county shall incur any indebtedness or liability in any manner exceeding in any year the income and revenue provided for such year without the assent of two-thirds of the qualified … Here it is clearly stated that the rentals are for that purpose.” (Pp. 447-448.) In Byram , the County of Los Angeles, as in the present case, entered into a contract with the retirement board of said county.

Wilkerson v. Brown

84 Cal. App. 2d 401 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 16, 1948

The evidence clearly presented a factual question for the jury to determine which was presented under proper instructions on the subject. (Veh. Code, § 513; Matsuda v. … It is true that an act or failure to act below a statutory standard is negligence per se, and when the evidence establishes that a violation thereof proximately caused the injury, and no excuse or justification of a violation

People v. Garcia CA5

California Court of Appeal · Dec 10, 2015

Whether the trial court ruled incorrectly regarding the People’s offer of immunity is not dispositive of the issue. … The jury clearly believed Repola’s testimony that defendant had inflicted the various injuries to her body.

People v. Cortez

California Court of Appeal · Oct 7, 2025

Unlike in Lamb, there is case-specific evidence establishing the circumstances of the predicate offenses. … Defendant has not met his burden of establishing that his sentence is unconstitutionally cruel or unusual. D.

Nilson v. Oakland Traction Co.

10 Cal. App. 103 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 19, 1909

“The term negligence for the purpose of pleading is a fact to be pleaded—an ultimate fact, which qualifies an act otherwise not wrongful. … The issue was thus clearly made as to whether defendant’s servants acted in pursuance of the signal of plaintiff.

Fleet v. Bank of America CA4/3

229 Cal. App. 4th 1403 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 25, 2014

INTRODUCTION This appeal represents another example of what is becoming a well established and predictable pattern. … Since the complaint was only six months old at that point, this dismissal was clearly erroneous. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 583.420.)

Sims v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation

216 Cal. App. 4th 1059 · California Court of Appeal · May 30, 2013

Even assuming all 212 permanent excusals [of jurors] were wrongful, this amounts to only .7% of the persons on the qualified wheels, an insignificant amount. … This express exclusion from judicial review clearly indicates the Legislature intended no others to be inferred.

People v. Bowman

24 Cal. App. 781 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 13, 1914

“Nor does it seem to us that there was a failure to establish the falsity of the representations on which Giacomini acted. … In establishing a negative, do the rules of law require more than was here shown? We think not.

In re Noah S.

California Court of Appeal · Aug 24, 2021

Minor’s conduct clearly evidences intent 5 to use force to overcome the victim’s resistance. (See People v. Jones (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 867, 872.) … None of this was necessary to establish an intent to rob.

People v. Washington

211 Cal. App. 3d 207 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 6, 1989

The People opposed the motion for the reason, among others, that it was premature because it had not been established that appellant would take the stand. At a pretrial hearing in March before Judge W. … The court clearly determined that it would not decide the impeachment issue until after appellant testified.

Dannenbrink v. Burger

23 Cal. App. 587 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 27, 1913

This whole question is clearly and fully treated in Weil on Water-rights, 3d ed., sections 51 to 63, inclusive, wherein the author makes a clear statement of the distinction which is recognized between the case of the discharge … Our conclusion is, as before stated, that the findings are sufficiently supported to render them immune from successful attack, and that the court’s conclusions of law therefrom are sound.

Morris v. Superior Court

57 Cal. App. 3d 521 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 21, 1976

Clearly, the conduct of the detective transcended negligence. … Nor do we answer the question as to whether Robinson’s primarily exculpatory statement that the stolen guitar was in petitioner’s house qualifies as a declaration against penal interest. (See People v.

People v. Zismer

275 Cal. App. 2d 660 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 18, 1969

But where the fact that defendant made the tracks can only be established by a comparison of the tracks with defendant’s shoes, the foundational requirement must be met. … Admission of the photograph of the imprint without proper foundation connecting it with defendant's shoes was clearly prejudicial. Judgment reversed. McCabe, P. J., concurred.

Mission Springs Water District v. Verjil

218 Cal. App. 4th 892 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 7, 2013

Initiatives to roll back the increases gathered enough signatures to qualify for the ballot. … sued because it had the temerity to file a complaint-in-intervention to force Pasadena to put the [i]nitiative into effect, and because it sponsored the [i]nitiative and supported its constitutionality, all of which are clearly