Case law

Mercury Insurance v. Pearson

169 Cal. App. 4th 1064 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 4, 2008

If the mere allegation of dual agency is insufficient to establish Mercury’s vicarious liability, Pearson states that he can further allege that (1) Vicencia and Schoensiegel advertised to the public that they represent Mercury … That endorsement stated clearly and explicitly that Pearson would not have the same uninsured motorist coverage under the policy as Hyung.

Robertson v. Langford

95 Cal. App. 414 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 13, 1928

. *417 Thereafter appellant duly qualified as such official, giving the necessary bond, properly approved, taking the requisite oath, and filing and recording said oath and bond as required by law. … However, this construction is not essential to this decision, but, if adopted, more clearly illustrates the intent of the framers of the constitutional provision.

People v. GOODWILLIE

54 Cal. Rptr. 3d 601 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 9, 2007

That is to say, two qualifying strikes, correct? . . . [f] . . . … In fact, the evidence establishes that Goodwillie was prejudiced. Goodwillie can clearly establish that he would have accepted the plea offer that was made if he had been accurately advised of his credit eligibility.

Gilmer v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

110 Cal. App. 4th 416 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 10, 2003

Schnell did not qualify as an insured under Mr. Nave’s State Farm policy, and her conduct did not constitute a second accident. Accordingly, to prevail, Mr. Gilmer must show that Ms. … ISSUES The stipulated facts establish that Ms. Schnell was a permissive user of a vehicle that was not owned by Mr. Nave, the insured.

Rogers v. Detrich

58 Cal. App. 3d 90 · California Court of Appeal · May 7, 1976

Yellow Cab Co. (1967) 67 Cal.2d 695 , at page 704 [ 63 Cal.Rptr. 724 , 433 P.2d 732 ], are clearly met. … It follows that only the first use of the word “aid” in the second sentence of section 11005.5 is qualified by the language “granted *106 under this part. . . .”

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.

People v. Field

1 Cal. App. 5th 174 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 6, 2016

He found that the 1972 and 1981 convictions were qualifying offenses under the SVPA. … That said, we are troubled by Field's failure to object at trial in light of his insistence on appeal that the instruction as given clearly was either incomprehensible or misleading.

Browne v. Superior Court

98 Cal. App. 3d 610 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 15, 1979

Moreover, since the petition presents a question of first impression likely to recur in future litigation, it provides an opportunity to establish clear guidelines for the benefit of trial courts and the legal profession … Whether such an examination by a qualified vocational rehabilitation counselor should be permitted in the first instance is a matter for the Legislature to determine and not the courts. (See Edmiston v.

Friends of Riverside's Hills v. City or Riverside

California Court of Appeal · Sep 7, 2018

This process of determining benchmark density establishes the allowable number of lots only, it does not dictate lot size. … The phrase appears in a provision applicable to PRDs only and clearly refers to the immediately preceding minimum lot size standard of half an acre.

Bowker v. Baker

73 Cal. App. 2d 653 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 26, 1946

It owns and operates school buses to transport pupils to and from its schools over regularly established routes. St. Anne’s Parochial School is a private school operated by the Roman Catholic Church. … Our duty in determining the constitutionality of a legislative enactment is clearly set forth in People v. Standard Accident Ins.

Wong v. Jing

189 Cal. App. 4th 1354 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 9, 2010

When she declined and asked again for the deletion, Yelp claimed immunity for the review and advised her she needed a court order. In response, Wong filed her lawsuit. … Under the circumstances, the court ruled that the declarations did not establish Ma’s nonliability.

In Re Mabie

159 Cal. App. 3d 301 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 25, 1984

However, subdivision (c) of Welfare and Institutions Code section 3201 clearly refers to the good behavior and participation credit in article 2.5. … Moreover, section 2933 credits, unlike good behavior and participation credits under section 2931, must be earned by state prison inmates who work in a credit qualifying assignment.

Lyons v. Chinese Hospital Ass'n

39 Cal. Rptr. 3d 550 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 6, 2006

“Finally, Plaintiff has not established that the interests of justice require that defendant pay his fees.” This timely appeal followed. Discussion A. … Clearly defendant has waived the right to raise the issue in this appeal. (Tiernan v. Trustees of Cal.

People v. Carter

7 Cal. App. 3d 332 · California Court of Appeal · May 6, 1970

The claim of coercion is one which a defendant can raise for the first time on appeal if the uncontradicted record clearly establishes the existence of coercion. (People v. … Questioning during the course of a lie detector test certainly qualifies as a form of custodial interrogation.

People v. Matthews

229 Cal. App. 3d 930 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 15, 1991

Rptr. 522 ].) (2) But, Guerrero clearly established the rule that the People are precluded from relitigating the circumstances of a past offense "`by introducing evidence outside the record. … Without the proper certification, the records were not admissible under section 969b. ( Ibid. ) The People contend that the rap sheets qualify for admission under the business records exception to the hearsay rule, codified

Bobrow/Thomas & Associates v. Superior Court

50 Cal. App. 4th 1654 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 25, 1996

and (2) Does the settlement qualify as a “good faith” settlement in spite of its objective of abridging the nonsettling defendant’s indemnification claims and insurance coverage? … Although its interests clearly are affected by the court’s order, BTA did not name PFI as a real party in interest to the petition. However, PFI has not been prejudiced by BTA’s oversight.

Doe v. United Air Lines, Inc.

73 Cal. Rptr. 3d 541 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 20, 2008

If the party’s showing is clearly “lacking in essential particulars,” the grant of a new trial is an abuse of discretion. {Slemons v. Paterson (1939) 14 Cal.2d 612, 615-616 [ 96 P.2d 125 ].) … Wyeth Laboratories, Inc. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 379, 386 [ 271 Cal.Rptr. 780 ] [doctor’s declaration in support of motion for summary judgment was inadequate where doctor lacked “training, experience or skill” qualifying him

Stanislaus County Community Services Agency v. J.D.

144 Cal. App. 4th 646 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 2, 2006

Clearly, the juvenile court understood its obligation to appoint a guardian ad litem for a minor who was a party to an action. … Yet, after establishing J.D. also was under the age of 18, qualified as D.D.’s presumed father, and had been placed in protective custody because he had no adult caretaker, the juvenile court did not appoint either a guardian

People v. Singh

37 Cal. App. 4th 1343 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 20, 1995

Further, “[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. … This court may find error only if the witness “clearly lacks qualification as an expert.” (People v.

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.