Case law

Cope v. Turner

200 Cal. App. 2d 757 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 27, 1962

She cannot now qualify as a “remaining child” under the substitutionary clause because she did not qualify at the crucial time fixed by the testatrix. … We conclude that the testatrix did not draw an elaborate will which sought to cover every contingency and yet provide for intestacy in one clearly foreseeable event; she clearly did not contemplate intestacy in the special

Osburn v. Department of Transportation

221 Cal. App. 3d 1339 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 29, 1990

He has one year from March 14, 1988 to acquire a new residence and to qualify for standard replacement housing payments for 180 day homeowner-occupants (49 CFR Section 25.401).” … Clearly the intent of LRH benefits is to ensure no person is forced to move from his residence as the result of a governmental project unless replacement housing is available. (See Garcia v.

Chun v. Del Cid

California Court of Appeal · Apr 26, 2019

The undisputed facts established that the Property was originally constructed in 1908 as single–family dwelling. … The court found that the Property was “not a single–family residence” because the evidence established it had “been a multi–family residence since before 1946.”

Spielman v. Ex'pression Center for New Media

191 Cal. App. 4th 420 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 2, 2010

Expression also contends—and the trial court agreed—that the provisions of section 94877, subdivision (a) are less clearly penal in nature than those of Business and Professions Code section 6061. … For example, state laws require that securities sales be “qualified” prior to being offered (Corp.

Arata v. Superior Court

153 Cal. App. 2d 767 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 13, 1957

The evidence in question was offered solely to establish that the officer had reasonable or probable cause to effect the search and seizure. … If this fundamental principle is clearly realized, its application is a comparatively simple matter.

Travis v. County of Santa Cruz

122 Cal. Rptr. 2d 713 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 26, 2002

We agree with the trial court's determination that petitioners do not qualify for the longer limitation period of section 65009, subdivision (d). … The city's decision in Gonzalez clearly fell within Government Code section 65009, subdivision (c)(1)(B), as it was a "decision of a legislative body to adopt or amend a zoning ordinance."

Lozano v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

236 Cal. App. 4th 992 · California Court of Appeal · May 13, 2015

O’Neill acknowledged that William had been exposed to known carcinogens at work, but was not aware of a specific established link between those carcinogens and stomach cancer. Dr. … The cases on which it relies, however, make clear that there is no deference when, as here, the determination is clearly erroneous. (See Brodie v. Workers’ Comp.

People v. Diaz

58 Cal. Rptr. 3d 287 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 25, 2007

An element of the charged offense, essential to a jury's determination of guilt, or admitted in a defendant's guilty plea, does not qualify as such a circumstance. [Citation.] … In sharp contrast are the rules governing the trial court's choice of proceeding under section 667.6, subdivision (c) or section 1170.1 for qualifying offenses.

Cta v. Governing Board of the Hilmar Unified Sch. Dist.

115 Cal. Rptr. 2d 323 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 11, 2002

A salary schedule established pursuant to this subdivision shall not result in the reduction of the salary of any teacher.” (Italics added.) … The “additional one-time payment of 3% of base salary” clearly falls within the scope of this definition. It was “remuneration” and a “payment.” As previously discussed, it was not directly “for services.”

People v. Weir

California Court of Appeal · Mar 29, 2019

Gonzales (2017) 2 Cal.5th 858, 862 (Gonzales).) 10 Section 459.5, subdivision (a), defines the crime of shoplifting as "entering a commercial establishment with intent to commit larceny while that establishment … The Legislature clearly can amend either statute if it disagrees with our interpretation, but as an intermediate Court of Appeal, we refuse to usurp the role of the Legislature by rewriting statutes. (People v.

Save San Francisco Bay Ass'n v. San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission

10 Cal. App. 4th 908 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 28, 1992

Instead, it was attempting to flesh out this ambiguous term to determine whether housing could qualify. … As already noted, unless clearly erroneous or unreasonable, we give BCDC’s interpretation deference.

Estate of Martino

California Court of Appeal · Oct 18, 2023

Conversely, someone could qualify for intestate succession under section 6454, but not section 6453. … “[I]t is well established that, for the doctrine to apply, the seemingly conflicting positions ‘must be clearly inconsistent so that one necessarily excludes the other.’ [Citation.]” (Id. at p. 182.)

Stevens v. National Broadcasting Co.

270 Cal. App. 2d 886 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 21, 1969

The finding further declared that the deletions were unrelated to any requirement for distribution, clearly implying that they affected the-content of the picture. … The court viewed the television program, and there was testimony by qualified witnesses that the "picture was not changed nor the content affected by the commercial interruptions.

Brendan O. v. Merced County Human Services Agency

197 Cal. App. 4th 586 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 13, 2011

She is left to the attention of the womenfolk who appeared to be appropriate with her and are clearly attached to her. … “[MATERNAL GRANDPARENTS’.COUNSEL]: But, your Honor, there’s—clearly there’s a difference between defacto parent and the relative.

People v. Rhodes

212 Cal. App. 3d 541 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 25, 1989

The wholesale disclosure of jurors’ names, addresses and telephone numbers clearly has an impact on a juror’s right to privacy. … Moreover, the record clearly indicates that, even without court ordered funding, the investigator continued to provide services in an effort to establish juror misconduct.

Angol v. Los Angeles Community College Dist. CA2/5

California Court of Appeal · Feb 5, 2016

held qualify as jurisdictional—both in the fundamental sense, and as acts in excess of jurisdiction: ‘[C]onvicting an unrepresented accused or prosecuting a person who has been granted immunity from such prosecution. … (Recommendations Relating to Sovereign Immunity, supra, p. 1016.)

People v. Amdur

123 Cal. App. 2d 951 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 23, 1954

“This department has no objection to establishment of a table on the sidewalk at the location and under the conditions indicated in the letter signed by Reuel S. Amdur. (s) J. D. … Such construction would clearly not be in harmony with Berkeley Ordinance No. 2631-N.S. referred to during the trial, which eoneededly regulates street meetings and parades.

Cal. Bldg. Industry Assn. v. State Water Resources

California Court of Appeal · May 11, 2015

engineer under the laws of this state who is experienced in sanitary engineering and who is qualified in the field of water quality, and one shall be qualified in the field of water quality. … That is clearly not the case. CBIA and Justice Richman misread the letter quoting the report.

Grade-Way Construction Co. v. Golden Eagle Insurance

13 Cal. App. 4th 826 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 19, 1993

Under these broad definitions, the statutory procedures governing both mechanic’s liens and stop notices qualify as judicial remedies. … The procedure section 996.440 establishes is different from the summary judgment procedure under section 437c.

City of Cerritos v. State of California

239 Cal. App. 4th 1020 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 25, 2015

A redevelopment agency was a separate legal entity from the city or county that established it. (County of Solano v. … If any potential effects could be identified, the appropriations bill would not qualify, even if it clearly had a demonstrated connection with the budget bill in the given year.