Case law

People v. Jones

California Court of Appeal · May 21, 2015

Mendoza (2000) 24 Cal.4th 130, at page 178, our Supreme Court found that a robbery victim’s belief that the robber was a gang member was “directly relevant to establishing the element of fear” required to establish a robbery … Two prior decisions of this court confirm that only those priors brought and tried separately qualify. (See People v.

Zuniga v. Western Riverside Council of Governments CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · Jan 25, 2024

“Section 814 simply reaffirms the longstanding rule that governmental immunity does not encompass contractual liability. . . . … If the Zunigas do not intend to seek emotional distress damages against WRCOG, they should clearly specify that position in any amended complaint that they file. 17 230 Cal.App.4th

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.

In Re Jerry P.

116 Cal. Rptr. 2d 123 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 27, 2002

He has visited regularly [and] clearly held himself out to be the father.... … 7611 is not to establish paternity.

Security Pacific National Bank v. Zahn

16 Cal. App. 3d 106 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 18, 1971

The organization qualifies under its articles of incorporation to receive the testatrix’ gifts and to administer them in accordance with the wishes expressed in her will. … the property was not acquired by the agency until April 10, 1969. “ ‘ “Ademption of a specific legacy is the extinction or withdrawal of a legacy in consequence of some act of the testator equivalent to its revocation, or clearly

Reck v. FCA US LLC

California Court of Appeal · May 24, 2021

Thus, the offeree must be able to clearly evaluate the worth of the extended offer.’ [Citation.]” (MacQuiddy v. … This success validates the [plaintiff’s] rejection of the tendered settlement and immunizes her from detrimental consequences based upon that rejection.” (Id. at p. 341.)

People v. Solomon CA3

California Court of Appeal · Nov 12, 2020

The trial court first explained it had granted her immunity for her testimony and asked if she understood the immunity agreement. R. said she did. … ‘[O]fficial government records clearly describing a prior conviction presumptively establish that the conviction in fact occurred, assuming those records meet the threshold requirements of admissibility. [Citation.]

RSB Vineyards v. Orsi

California Court of Appeal · Sep 29, 2017

pleaded, cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to that cause of action.’ … The record before us does not clearly establish the trial court made either ruling in its decision.2 In any event, we agree with RSB that Black’s deposition testimony was not a binding admission and that Miyano’s declaration

Tetra Pak, Inc. v. State Board of Equalization

234 Cal. App. 3d 1751 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 16, 1991

Relief will be granted unless clearly forbidden by statute. … The orders made subsequent to the judgment thus cannot, in this instance, qualify as appealable pursuant to section 904.1, subdivision (b), and the purported appeals therefrom must also be dismissed.

People v. Townsend

62 Cal. App. 4th 1390 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 10, 1998

minors were playing basketball on the campus. 10 Accordingly, whether or not the school was “open for classes or school-related programs,” the alternative criterion of the enhancement—that minors be using the facility—was clearly … The qualifying language “where the offense occurs” is necessary to identify which of “those facilities” must be in use by minors at the time of the offense.

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.)

Deaile v. General Telephone Co. of California

40 Cal. App. 3d 841 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 22, 1974

denied plaintiff’s motion to compel answers to certain of plaintiff’s interrogatories. 4 In considering the first argument that the defense of privilege was not properly established, we note that the qualified or conditional … Hence, malice is not presumed; and, in order to establish a cause of action, it was necessary that plaintiff prove the existence of malice.” (See also Mullins v.

Fortner v. Safeway Stores, Inc.

229 Cal. App. 3d 542 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 22, 1991

On the assumption that the employment must generate the injury, plaintiff argues the evidence presented at most establishes that “forcing her to wear closed toe shoes aggravates her condition causing pain,” but does not establish … Clearly the statute contemplates an employer-employee relationship at the time of the discharge, threat of discharge or other discriminatory act.”

Freedom Foundation v. Super. Ct.

California Court of Appeal · Dec 30, 2022

“To justify departing from a literal reading of a clearly worded statute, the results produced must be so unreasonable the Legislature could not have intended them.” … Thus, to be successful, [a petitioner] must establish that the files (1) qualify as ‘public records’ and (2) were in the possession of [the agency].” (Consolidated Irrigation Dist. v.

People v. Yepez-Gutierrez CA5

California Court of Appeal · Mar 28, 2014

Defendant never argued he was immunized from selling marijuana in any way. … The MMPA “immunize[d] from prosecution a range of conduct ancillary to the provision of medical marijuana to qualified patients. (§ 11362.765.)” (Ibid.)

People v. K.D.

California Court of Appeal · Mar 28, 2025

Wright reported that defendant had put her “full effort” into his testing, and he concluded that she “clearly” met diagnostic criteria for “intellectual disability-moderate.” Dr. … Defendant submitted evidence that a community member had offered her housing if she remained substance free, and she qualified for Medi-Cal insurance.

Affordable Housing Alliance v. Feinstein

179 Cal. App. 3d 484 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 31, 1986

Section 87101 establishes a limited exception to the rule that a public official shall not participate in a governmental decision in which he or she has a financial interest. … Clearly under the charter, the may- or has a significant and unique function in the city’s lawmaking process.

City of San Jose v. Garbett

190 Cal. App. 4th 526 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 24, 2010

On May 28, 2008, appellant appeared at the front desk of the city clerk’s office and asked if his signature had qualified. … Michelle Radcliffe, another deputy city clerk, was at the front desk when appellant came in to ask if his nomination papers had qualified him for candidacy.

Med-Trans Corporation, Inc. v. City of California City

68 Cal. Rptr. 3d 17 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 19, 2007

The federal lawsuit had alleged, among other things, that Kern County was involved in anticompetitive practices by wrongly denying ambulance permits to otherwise qualified companies. … That quotation clearly has no bearing here, where the attorney solicited the prospective client (not the other way around) and, pursuant thereto, engaged in a conversation that has not been shown to have involved the disclosure

People v. Mendoza

96 Cal. Rptr. 2d 431 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 9, 2000

The court went on to explain: "Under the SVP Act, the determination of whether the defendant is a sexually violent predator who poses a threat to society must include evidence of qualifying prior convictions. ( In re Parker … Therefore, the act clearly contemplates the use of such evidence at the trial.