Case law

San Diego County Department of Social Services v. Bright

217 Cal. App. 3d 702 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 3, 1990

Section 7004 lists the several ways in which a man may qualify as a “presumed father.” Most of the listed conditions refer to actual or attempted marriage. … Bright has never sought custody of Sabrina nor has he ever filed an action to establish paternity under section 7006(c).

Hansen v. Hansen

233 Cal. App. 2d 575 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 14, 1965

Harrold, 43 Cal.2d 77 at pp. 88-90 [ 271 P.2d 489 ]); and so where the judgment clearly establishes the appellant’s right to recover but the amount is less than he demands, he may accept it and nevertheless appeal, claiming … That the foregoing must be qualified by reference to all of the circumstances of the case is manifest from the opinion of this court in Whitney v. Whitney, supra, 164 Cal.App.2d 577 .

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.

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

Melamed v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center

8 Cal. App. 5th 1271 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 27, 2017

Indeed, Plaintiff described the deformity as ―clearly obvious‖ and needing correction within a few days. B. … Plaintiff‘s conversation with the parents clearly does not fall under the statute. Nevertheless, Plaintiff maintains that Dr.

People v. Aarica S.

223 Cal. App. 4th 1480 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 21, 2014

In support of her motion, appellant presented the following evidence to establish that she was a victim of human trafficking. Appellant testified that her father raped her when she was three years old. … The italicized language -- “as a result of” -- clearly requires a specific causal connection between the victim’s status as a victim and the commercial sex act at issue.

People v. Dominguez

180 Cal. App. 4th 1351 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 19, 2010

The Supreme Court held “the Pamell-Rios construction of Oliver has merit because the consent and force elements of kidnapping are clearly intertwined. [Citation.] … The use of force establishes a false imprisonment.

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. . . .”

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Chevron USA, Inc. v. County of Kern

230 Cal. App. 4th 1315 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 28, 2014

Since the evidence clearly established that Chevron paid the tax via a check with Corp’s name on it, there is no danger of a double refund. … To establish valuation principles for oil and gas properties, the State Board of Equalization (SBE) adopted Rule 468 (Cal.

Rocha v. U-Haul Co. of Cal.

California Court of Appeal · Feb 2, 2023

IT APPLIES TO YOU”—and clearly discloses, in an underlined portion on the first page, that U-Haul is requiring the employee to sign the agreement as a term of continued employment at U-Haul. (See Craig v. … Once the Labor Code violations based on which a plaintiff seeks to qualify for PAGA standing have been finally adjudicated, the extent to which that adjudication prevents a plaintiff from qualifying for standing will depend

Hanson v. Gram

25 Cal. App. 4th 859 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 7, 1994

The record on appeal reveals the particulars only of the enhanced early retirement option but the names of the others suggest their makeup: the newspapers established enhanced retirement, enhanced early retirement and voluntary … Each of these plans was clearly designed to deal with the needs of employees of differing ages, years of service and life expectations.

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. Lynn

16 Cal. App. 3d 259 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 2, 1971

Wruble’s automobile; the circumstances of defendants’ arrest near Williams on September 27; and their *265 booking at the Lake County jail on the same date. 4 Tovar and Jolly (both of whom had been granted immunity) testified … It thus clearly appears that, having carefully balanced the probative value of the other-crimes evidence against its prejudicial effect, the trial court concluded that the former outweighed the latter.

People v. Laugenour

25 Cal. App. 44 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 25, 1914

The foregoing embraces a statement in substance of all the important evidence produced at the trial, and, as before stated, it is admitted that the facts thereby established are true. … If the dedication is complete by his act, whether express or implied, it is thereafter irrevocable by him, and the effect of such dedication cannot be qualified by any act or declaration thereafter made on his part.