Case law

People v. Jones

187 Cal. App. 2d 335 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 12, 1960

Billy was asked no questions respecting the facts of the ease, as it was ultimately decided that he could not qualify. … The fact that Keith was not as big as Billy was a well-established fact in the case and the comment of the *341 district attorney was purely factual, being a very brief reference.

Duea v. County of San Diego

204 Cal. App. 4th 691 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 29, 2012

To the extent these exhibits discuss new rule 462.500, they clearly are not relevant to the issue at hand, where the original property was acquired in 2000. … Clearly, the Board, with its expertise and its ability to exercise quasi-judicial powers delegated to it by the California Constitution (see Steinhart v.

Black v. Caruso

187 Cal. App. 2d 195 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 8, 1960

In view of the testimony of the doctors, we think that there is nothing in his argument, and that the verdict is clearly supported. … Nothing was done, before he was shipped off, unattended by any qualified nurse or doctor, and with no instructions to the ambulance crew, to determine whether a neurosurgeon was any more readily available at Walnut Creek.

People v. Ortega

2 Cal. App. 3d 884 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 19, 1969

Adrian LaGrave who qualified as a narcotics expert, testified that he had talked with Aiken on June 10, 1968, and had examined him physically. … In the present case, the burden of proof is on the People of the State of California to establish every part of it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Parchester Village Neighborhood Council v. City of Richmond

182 Cal. App. 4th 305 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 24, 2010

They assert the City qualifies as both a “responsible” agency, 6 and a “lead” agency 7 with respect to the casino project. … Here, the MSA merely sets the stage for future negotiations to establish the FPERA.

Placencia v. Strazicich

California Court of Appeal · Nov 26, 2019

The express terms of the account bear particular importance for the financial institution that holds the account: CAMPAL contains a safe harbor that immunizes a financial institution for payments it makes in compliance with … She established a living trust that expressly stated her intention to give the savings account to [the trust beneficiary].

Donald v. Cafe Royale, Inc.

218 Cal. App. 3d 168 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 23, 1990

Evidence as to Donald’s good faith in visiting the restaurant was clearly admitted. … However, this definition is qualified by the limitation “unless the context clearly requires otherwise.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1032, subd. (a).)

Brown v. Brown

83 Cal. App. 74 · California Court of Appeal · May 12, 1927

“By the contract he was granted complete immunity from any financial charge whatever, and that, too, whether he continued to live with his wife, either as a faithful or faithless husband, or whether he deserted her in whatever … A reading of the agreement, we think, very clearly leads to the conclusion that the agreement partakes of both the elements of a property settlement and of an agreement for support and maintenance, and combines in its terms

People v. Zorich

California Court of Appeal · Oct 13, 2020

Proposition 47 reduced certain drug- and theft- related crimes from felonies or wobblers to misdemeanors for qualified defendants and added, among other statutory provisions, sections 1170.18 and 490.2. … As the minutes of that date clearly establish, however, no court reporter was present.

Neville v. CHUDACOFF

73 Cal. Rptr. 3d 383 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 12, 2008

Civil Code section 47 has been used to interpret similar language in the anti-SLAPP statute [citation], we reject the broad conclusion that conduct deemed communicative for purposes of Civil Code section 47 automatically qualifies … "Thus, it has been established for well over a century that a communication is absolutely immune from any tort liability if it has `"some relation"' to judicial proceedings." (Ibid.)

Sessions Payroll Management, Inc. v. Noble Construction Co.

101 Cal. Rptr. 2d 127 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 31, 2000

as if he were a party to it, when a plaintiff would clearly be entitled to attorney’s fees should he prevail in enforcing the contractual obligation against the defendant.” ( 25 Cal.3d at p. 128 .) … It is also true that a party not named in the contract may qualify as a beneficiary under it where the contracting parties must have intended to benefit the unnamed party and the agreement reflects that intent.

People v. Walker

203 Cal. App. 2d 552 · California Court of Appeal · May 15, 1962

The evidence establishes that the filling in the cigarette was marijuana. … Clearly the arrest was unlawful. 2 The rule that a search and seizure without a warrant is lawful if made as an incident to a lawful arrest has no application to the facts at bar.

People v. Corlett

67 Cal. App. 2d 33 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 27, 1944

The evidence clearly shows that he was not a . trespasser. … Those facts' indicate clearly that Staf *51 ford was not a trespasser on the premises.

The Association of Deputy District Attorneys etc. v. Gascon

California Court of Appeal · Jun 2, 2022

Our role here is to interpret the statute[s] [as they are written], not to establish policy. … Poizner, supra, 187 Cal.App.4th at p. 597 [a statute or ordinance must clearly define the specific duties or course of conduct a governing body must take for that course of conduct to become mandatory].)

M.M. v. Koinonia Foster Homes CA4/2

California Court of Appeal · Mar 14, 2022

The SAC does not clearly identify which test M.M. relies on to support her contention that Koinonia acted as a state actor, but it alleges that Koinonia “participates in a joint action with” the County and “fulfills a public … We therefore address only whether the SAC alleges sufficient facts that Koinonia’s conduct qualifies as state action under the public function and joint action tests.

Estate of Sapp

California Court of Appeal · Jun 11, 2019

However, the court concluded the evidence supported removal of the executor because he “was ‘otherwise not qualified.’” … Although removal of a personal representative for embezzlement or fraud clearly requires an affirmative showing of moral wrongdoing, and we assume intentional wrongdoing by an administrator will normally establish mismanagement

Hutton v. Title Insurance & Trust Co.

54 Cal. App. 415 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 30, 1921

covenant the property was made the subject of a lien to secure the payment of five dollars per year, the decree, in the absence of any showing by respondent, should in express terms, as provided in section 15 of the act, have established … explicit, and unmistakable terms set forth the conclusion of the court thereon. [9] While under the act reference may be had to records of deeds, nevertheless, as to a title which, as here, under the deeds is limited and qualified

Wal-Noon Corp. v. Hill

45 Cal. App. 3d 605 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 27, 1975

Except as herein qualified, Lessees shall keep the leased premises in good order and condition at their own expense and surrender the same in good order and condition upon the expiration or sooner termination of this lease … The action proceeded to trial on that theory, plaintiffs seeking to establish the provisions of the lease and the circumstances surrounding repair and replacement of the roof.

Sosin v. Richardson

210 Cal. App. 2d 258 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 27, 1962

Defendant's agreement was made in the nature of a qualified guarantee of the repayment of the loan. … Roberts continued to ask defendant about Parcel B and defendant told him that they couldn’t establish a value for that parcel so they would just hold off on it until they could determine what they would do.

John Norton Farms, Inc. v. Todagco

124 Cal. App. 3d 149 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 1, 1981

It is also a fundamental rule that the motion should state the precise grounds on which it is made, with the defects in the plaintiffs case clearly and particularly indicated. … After all, the question of whether plaintiff used the product called Tenoran “outside its label” so as to make applicable the statutory immunity provided by section 12855 of the Food and Agricultural Code would be a question