Case law

Chadek v. Spira

146 Cal. App. 2d 360 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 28, 1956

The instruction is a mere commonplace, a truism that contributes little of any significant consequence to the understanding of any person qualified to serve as a juror. (Powell v. … visible, he sees it, and that when he listens, he hears that which is clearly audible.

Seeley v. Seymour

190 Cal. App. 3d 844 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 26, 1987

Humphreys (1924) 68 Cal.App. 530, 535 [ 229 P. 860 ]), nor did it qualify for recording under the recording statutes. (Gov. … The evidence conclusively supported the liability of appellants and is clearly severable from the damage issues.

Cortina v. North Am. Title Co.

California Court of Appeal · May 29, 2026

Based on this and other testimony, defendant argued she clearly met the 51 percent threshold for exempt work. … The errors in this case were clearly prejudicial.

State Compensation Ins. Fund v. WCAB

50 Cal. Rptr. 3d 860 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 30, 2006

Nevertheless, we give great weight to the WCAB's administrative construction of the statutes it is charged to enforce and interpret unless the construction is clearly erroneous. … Sandhagen argues that section 4610 "clearly and unambiguously" requires employers to follow the UR procedure for all medical treatment requests.

City of Fontana v. QualityGenetix CA4/2

California Court of Appeal · Jun 24, 2014

The MMP established a program for identification cards and granted specified persons engaged in specified conduct certain immunities from criminal prosecution. (Id. at p. 745.) … On July 24, 2007, the City adopted Ordinance No. 1559 (Ordinance) to amend the FCC in order to ban the establishment and operation of MMDs in the city limits.

Bradstreet v. Wong

75 Cal. Rptr. 3d 253 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 16, 2008

First, the plain language of section 1193.6 does not support the Commissioner’s construction because the phrase “orders of the commission” does not modify, qualify or otherwise define the word “employee.” … Therefore, the court concluded, although Tomi, Inc., might qualify as a “deemed employer” within the meaning of section 2677, to hold defendants personally liable, intervener would have to prove that defendants were the alter

People v. Goldstein

139 Cal. App. 2d 146 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 9, 1956

Officer Marshall, who qualified as an expert on bookmaking, further testified he decoded the six papers and in his opinion they were betting markers; “I also checked as a result of breaking that down, I checked the numerals … “Indirect evidence is that which tends to establish the fact in dispute by proving another, and which, though true, does not of itself conclusively establish that fact, but which affords an inference or presumption of its

People v. McCutcheon

187 Cal. App. 3d 552 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 6, 1986

Crowson, supra, 33 Cal.3d 623 establishes two principles relevant to proving a prior serious felony conviction under section 667, subdivision (a): "... (1) that proof of a prior conviction establishes only the minimum elements … "Burglary of a residence" is clearly synonymous with burglary of an inhabited dwelling and has long been so understood. (See e.g., People v. Allard (1929) 99 Cal. App. 591 [ 279 P. 182 ]; People v.

James v. James

80 Cal. App. 185 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 9, 1926

These cases establish beyond controversy that the defendant in this case has failed to establish his right to the premises in controversy as a bona fide purchaser or to place himself in a position to question the consideration … and the record in this case, clearly establishes that the findings and judgment of the trial court should have been in favor of the plaintiff.

Shepard v. Calfarm Life Insurance

5 Cal. App. 4th 1067 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 27, 1992

The trial court concluded the Plan B certificates clearly revealed their obvious sole purpose was to coordinate with Medicare. … It is also well established, however, that this rule of construction is applicable only when the policy language is found to be unclear.

Oldham v. Kizer

235 Cal. App. 3d 1046 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 31, 1991

However, “a mere change in phraseology, incident to a revision of the . . . statute, does not result in a change of meaning unless the intent to make such a change clearly appears.” (Mosk v. … Co. of America (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 594, 599 [ 114 Cal.Rptr. 299 ].) *1066 Clearly, the evidence of Mary Butera was subject to justifiable suspicion, based on the dates involved.

Physicians Com. for Responsible etc. v. L.A. Unified School Dist.

California Court of Appeal · Dec 12, 2019

Section 49531 establishes a duty for school districts that use the federal and state funds to provide breakfasts and lunches for qualifying students, but the duty it creates is one of nutritional adequacy. … A traditional writ may be appropriate to correct an abuse of discretion, and it can force a particular action if the law clearly establishes a right to the particular action sought. (Miller Family Home, Inc. v.

Johnson v. Dept. of Transportation

California Court of Appeal · Apr 1, 2025

28 materials that obviously or clearly appear to be privileged,” and the other, “when an attorney ascertains that he or she received materials that are not obviously or clearly privileged, but nonetheless may be privileged … While McDermott concluded that the receipt of “materials that are not obviously or clearly privileged . . . triggers a more limited response” than the receipt of “materials that obviously or clearly appear to be privileged

Rose v. City of Hayward

126 Cal. App. 3d 926 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 18, 1981

The law unequivocally provides that each class member may establish damages independently without threatening the integrity of the class action. (Vasquez v. … (Italics added.) *941 Respondents’ characterization of the holiday pay as overtime is clearly erroneous.

Maxwell-Jolly v. Martin

198 Cal. App. 4th 347 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 11, 2011

This allows elderly applicants, despite having a valuable asset, to qualify for Medicaid covered services. (42 U.S.C. § 1382b(a)(l).) … In *361 light of our decision that the Director’s right of reimbursement under Welfare and Institutions Code section 14009.5 is not contractual in nature, and our conclusion that section 338, subdivision (a) clearly prescribes

Long v. State Personnel Board

41 Cal. App. 3d 1000 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 24, 1974

The classification is clearly necessary to further this interest. … These laws recognize that there are jobs for which one sex is inherently and biologically more qualified than those of the opposite sex.

Arenas v. El Torito Restaurants, Inc.

183 Cal. App. 4th 723 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 15, 2010

The following requirements shall apply in determining whether an employee’s duties meet the test to qualify for an exemption from those sections: [ft] (1) Executive Exemption].] … Some class members could have been misclassified while others are clearly not misclassified as evidenced by this court’s and Judge Meyer’s decisions on summary judgment as to individual class *731 members’ cases.

Johnson v. Dept. of Transportation

California Court of Appeal · Mar 17, 2025

28 materials that obviously or clearly appear to be privileged,” and the other, “when an attorney ascertains that he or she received materials that are not obviously or clearly privileged, but nonetheless may be privileged … While McDermott concluded that the receipt of “materials that are not obviously or clearly privileged . . . triggers a more limited response” than the receipt of “materials that obviously or clearly appear to be privileged

Hernandez v. Superior Court

4 Cal. Rptr. 3d 883 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 23, 2003

If an objection is based on a claim of privilege, the particular privilege invoked shall be clearly stated. … In addition, the court ordered petitioners to serve defendants with a declaration from one or more qualified experts with regard to each product or equipment identified in compliance with the first part of the order, stating

JRS Products, Inc. v. Matsushita Electric Corp. of America

8 Cal. Rptr. 3d 840 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 25, 2004

Section 20037 expressly qualifies the applicability of section 20035. … That is clearly not the law.