Case law

Southern California Edison Co. v. Public Utilities Commission

18 Cal. Rptr. 3d 435 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 27, 2004

In addition, certain “qualifying small power production facilities]” ( 16 U.S.C. § 796 (17)(C)) and “qualifying cogeneration facilities]” ( 16 U.S.C. § 796 (18)(B)) are designated to be within the jurisdiction of state regulatory … reflected in any retail rates established by the commission.

Hypolite v. Carleson

32 Cal. App. 3d 979 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 18, 1973

Townsend held invalid an Illinois statute and regulation which provided that needy dependent children 18 through 20 years attending a college or university did not qualify under the AFDC program as being in conflict with … This clause “forbids the establishment of laws which arbitrarily and unreasonably create dissimilar classifications of individuals when, looking to the purpose of those laws, such individuals are similarly situated.”

People v. Samuels

250 Cal. App. 2d 501 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 28, 1967

The prosecution established that Barnes had been convicted of a felony. Dr. … This contention clearly goes to the validity of the aggravated assault conviction, since defendant admitted, during the course of said interrogation, that he was the man administering the beating in the ‘ ‘ vertical ’ ’ film

Kenney v. Kenney

97 Cal. App. 2d 60 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 19, 1950

Respondent herein qualified as administratrix with will annexed of the Weible estate. … That appellant owned an interest in the drilling partnership from the date of its organization on May 1, 1923, is clearly established.

People v. Lynch

60 Cal. App. 2d 133 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 5, 1943

This challenge is grounded on the claim that the evidence as a matter of law fails to establish that at the time of the entry, or at any other time here pertinent, the defendant had or was mentally capable of forming a specific … Furthermore, it may serve to defeat the punishment of crime by jeopardizing a conviction when a defendant is clearly guilty.

Essick v. Union Pacific Railroad

182 Cal. App. 2d 456 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 6, 1960

On the other hand, testimony of the trainmen, witnesses for the defendant, established that: (1) the train was operating well within the established speed limit for that section of track; (2) an automatic bell and headlight … Thus, under the facts of the Anello case, the error clearly appeared to have resulted in substantial prejudice to the plaintiff. There was direct conflict in the evidence on every material point.

Hak Fu Hung v. Wang

8 Cal. App. 4th 908 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 6, 1992

California (1980) 444 U.S. 277, 282 [ 62 L.Ed.2d 481, 487 , 100 S.Ct. 553 ] [upholding immunity provision of the California Tort Claims Act (Gov. … If this court were to insert in the statute all or any of the . . . qualifying provisions [required to render it constitutional], it would in no sense be interpreting the statute as written, but would be rewriting the statute

Renden v. Geneva Development Corp.

253 Cal. App. 2d 578 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 15, 1967

The validity of plaintiffs’ easement was established and damages in the sum of $1.00 assessed against Geneva. Geneva appeals. Its contentions are discussed under appropriate headings. … Damages The award of nominal damages is attacked on two grounds: that plaintiff had no easement and that the facts do not establish damages. The first ground has been disposed of.

Center for Biological Diversity v. California Fish and Game Commission

195 Cal. App. 4th 128 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 8, 2011

.” *133 The Commission and the Department responded that the Center was entitled to no relief: “The Commission found that the [Center’s administrative] petition was ‘clearly deficient’ due to the absence of required scientific … Does this qualify as a “significant benefit” or “the enforcement of an important right affecting the public interest”?

NIKO v. Foreman

50 Cal. Rptr. 3d 398 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 30, 2006

a thousand miles away. 4 In my view, the court clearly did modify the prior joint custody judgment. … If believed, his evidence would clearly be sufficient to support the conclusion that Foreman’s decision to take Taylor away to Colorado was part of an established pattern of bad faith conduct; indeed, it was arguably the

People v. Butcher

174 Cal. App. 2d 722 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 23, 1959

Appellant concedes that “if the reporter had no independent recollection of what was said, then his notes could have been qualified as past recollection recorded, and . . . admitted in evidence (CCP 2047; People v. … In order to convict, the jury had to believe the victim, and that testimony clearly established the appellant’s guilt as to all three crimes. The judgment is affirmed. Peek, Acting P.

City of Maywood v. Los Angeles Unified School District

208 Cal. App. 4th 362 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 18, 2012

Maywood Has Failed to Establish That the Proposed Slauson Avenue Off-ramp Qualifies as a Probable Future Project CEQA does not require that an EIR consider the potential cumulative impacts of every proposed future project … That is not sufficient to establish a CEQA violation. 29 G.

California Faculty Ass'n. v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County

63 Cal. App. 4th 935 · California Court of Appeal · May 6, 1998

Muhlenberg College (3d Cir. 1980) 621 F.2d 532, 547-548 .) “ ‘[T]he peer review system has evolved as the most reliable method for assuring promotion of the candidates best qualified to serve the needs of the institution. … The arbitrator clearly misperceived the authority granted him to perform a limited deferential review of the president’s decision.

Kaufman v. Diskeeper Corp.

229 Cal. App. 4th 1 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 21, 2014

Code, § 3534 [“Particular expressions qualify those which are general.”].) As noted, rule 3.1700 bears the generic title “PREJUDGMENT COSTS,” while rule 3.1702 bears the specific title “CLAIMING ATTORNEY’S FEES.” … matter is covered by inconsistent provisions, one of which is special and the other general, the special one, whether or not enacted first, is an exception to the general statute and controls unless an intent to the contrary clearly

People v. Sambrano

33 Cal. App. 2d 200 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 6, 1939

He was first qualified as an expert on that subject by proof of seventeen years’ experience in such matters in the sheriff’s office. He did not say definitely the spot was caused by blood. … The record clearly shows that after the evidence was closed and the arguments completed, the court informed the jurors with respect to various forms of verdicts which they should consider.

Mayron v. Google LLC

California Court of Appeal · Sep 11, 2020

Plaintiff asserts section 17604 of the automatic renewal law clearly shows intent to create a private right of action. … Therefore, the charges must qualify as an injury.” (Id. at p. 22).

McCaughna v. Bilhorn

10 Cal. App. 2d 674 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 17, 1935

Bilhorn who qualified and entered upon the performance of his duties as executor. This order has become final and is not now before us and no question is raised as to its correctness. … "While the doctrine of equitable conversion is well established, its limitations are also well settled. The rule is stated in 6 R. C.

County of Ventura v. Southern California Edison Co.

85 Cal. App. 2d 529 · California Court of Appeal · May 18, 1948

The present statute clearly finds its justification upon the same basis. In support of its position, appellant cites Chicago v. … It is a firmly established principle of law that one may not urge the unconstitutionality of a statute unless his rights are adversely affected thereby (16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, §76).

Community Memorial Hospital v. County of Ventura

50 Cal. App. 4th 199 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 20, 1996

of this section is to eliminate discrimination or segregation based on economic disability so that the county hospital and other hospitals in the community share in providing services to paying patients and to those who qualify … The court said, “[Ujnder our system of government taxes can be laid only for a public object-one within the purposes for which governments are established.” (Id., at pp. 779-780.)

Wallis v. PHL Associates, Inc.

168 Cal. App. 4th 882 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 25, 2008

The parties, as well as their spouses and employees, were explicitly excluded from the definition of “qualified person[s].” … Griffin declaration by third parties would establish their public disclosure.