Case law

Cummings v. Cummings

236 Cal. App. 2d 659 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 19, 1965

Commissioner, supra [ 308 U.S. 39 ( 60 S.Ct. 51 , 84 L.Ed. 20 )], develops the concept of *663 taxability under the estate tax as establishing non-taxability under the gift tax. … Its legislative history indicates clearly that Congress did not contemplate that the Government would be interested in the distribution of the estate after the tax was paid, and that Congress intended that state law should

C. R. Fedrick, Inc. v. State Board of Equalizer

204 Cal. App. 3d 252 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 11, 1988

Annot., State Sales or Use Tax as Violating Immunity of United States—Supreme Court Cases (1976) 44 L.Ed.2d 719 ; Annot. (1942) 140 A.L.R. 621 .) … The nature or basis of the asserted distinction is not clearly indicated, but we infer from the briefs that the argument has reference to articles installed in buildings of special design and construction or attached in a

People v. Green

117 Cal. App. 3d 199 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 24, 1981

Although the affidavit reflected that informants one, two and three knew each other, the circumstances under which they were interviewed established that each was sufficiently independent. … A petition for a rehearing was denied April 23, 1981. 1 Smith testified that he recognized defendant because he had contacted him four months earlier. 2 Smith was qualified as an expert witness in the possession and distribution

Doe v. California Dept. of Justice

173 Cal. App. 4th 1095 · California Court of Appeal · May 7, 2009

G.G. and B.M. qualified for exclusions. … "If the Legislature has clearly indicated its intent that . . . amendments operate retroactively, we must carry out that intent unless the Constitution forbids. [Citations.]

People v. Yokely

183 Cal. App. 4th 1264 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 15, 2010

Cox was granted immunity in exchange for his testimony. 3. Other Evidence John Paul Jones gave the police a description of the shooter in the hospital the night of the shooting. … enhancements on counts 1 through 4 that are discussed in the unpublished portion of the opinion. 6 Although both parties relied on the transcripts of defendant’s 1992 trial in arguing the motion to suppress, the record clearly

People v. Smith

189 Cal. App. 4th 1263 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 8, 2010

She was "clearly conscious" at 10:15 p.m. when she checked out. … The jury clearly believed, as they were entitled to do, her testimony rather than that of defendant.

People v. Bannon

59 Cal. App. 50 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 6, 1922

The office of a reviewing court in a case such as this is very clearly stated in People v. … The people rested under the necessity of establishing a tragedy involving the violent death of a human being from mortal wounds, unlawfully inflicted with malice aforethought.

Chalmers v. Hirschkop

213 Cal. App. 4th 289 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 30, 2013

A custodial parent’s decisions regarding visitation are entitled to presumptive validity and must be accorded “ ‘special weight,’ ” but they are not immune from judicial review. (Fenn, at p. 1479.) The court in Rich v. … “Providing parents a superior ability to influence the upbringing of their child is clearly in the interests of the child.

Fillmore v. Irvine

146 Cal. App. 3d 649 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 26, 1983

As noted above, Robinson establishes a rebuttable presumption of employee status. … Accordingly, we decline to depart from the ordinary burden of proof established by Evidence Code section 500.

Isaak v. Super. Ct.

California Court of Appeal · Jan 11, 2022

It found that Isaak had established he was in failing health and that he had a substantial interest in the action as a whole. (§ 36, subd. (a).) … A subsequent case management order established a “preference protocol.”

People v. Swansboro

200 Cal. App. 2d 831 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 1, 1962

McCoy, supra, 25 Cal.2d 177 ,192: “The fact that here the knife was exhibited in connection with a qualified threat would not preclude the appellant’s conviction as charged.” See also People v. … “It was not necessary in order to establish the commission of the crime that [respondent] should have actually cut his intended victim with the knife which he exhibited. (People v.

Yari v. PRODUCERS GUILD OF AMERICA, INC.

73 Cal. Rptr. 3d 803 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 25, 2008

The Producers Branch Executive Committee will designate the qualifying producer nominees for each of the nominated pictures.” The executive committee relies on Guild designations. … Clearly, they did not.

General Insurance Co. of America v. Commerce Hyatt House

5 Cal. App. 3d 460 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 17, 1970

Appellants have called our attenton to the amendment effective September 17, 1965, which added to subdivision 1 of section 1511 the following *471 qualifying language: “[h]owever, the parties may expressly require in a contract … Ferguson Co., 261 Cal.App.2d 594, 602-603 [ 68 Cal.Rptr. 78 ]: “Well established is the law that a statute is presumed to be prospective only in operation and will not be retroactively applied unless such intention clearly

Cordova v. Superior Court

148 Cal. App. 3d 177 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 20, 1983

By these guidelines we do not intend to entirely relieve a defendant of some duty of diligence to make a known alien witness available for trial. *187 Under other facts, that duty may well serve to qualify the People’s burden … Clearly, in the present case the prosecutor took no steps whatever to assure the availability of the alien witnesses to the defendant before he affirmatively dismissed the cases against the aliens, knowing they would be deported

Hernandez v. Superior Court

112 Cal. App. 4th 285 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 29, 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

People v. Henry

184 Cal. App. 4th 1313 · California Court of Appeal · May 25, 2010

The Supreme Court clearly has not contemplated the demise of the good faith exception in its recent decisions. … immunity will shield officers from liability for searches conducted in reasonable reliance on that understanding." ( Gant, supra , at pp. ___, ___, fn. 11 [ 129 S.Ct. at pp. 1718 , 1723 , fn. 11].) 18 Under these circumstances

Dahlbeck v. Industrial Accident Commission

135 Cal. App. 2d 394 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 12, 1955

Next it is argued that the contemporaneous administrative construction of a statute is entitled to great weight and will not be rejected unless clearly erroneous, citing Coca-Cola Co. v. … It is permissible and desirable to distinguish between a formula or rule—established ‘100 per cent disability’ for certain rating purposes, and actual total disability insofar as productive work or com *404 pensated employment

People v. Buchanan

26 Cal. App. 3d 274 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 22, 1972

His determination being supported by substantial evidence, it is established for purposes of this appeal that Mrs. … Gilmore, as manager of the apartment house, who made personal observations indicating criminal conduct, qualifies as an identified citizen informant whose information may generally be relied upon. (People v.

Rubin v. United Air Lines, Inc.

117 Cal. Rptr. 2d 109 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 20, 2002

As the service director put it, “that’s when the hair came up on the back of my neck, because, . . . you’re violating everything that it’s about, because it was clearly stated to Mrs. … All seats in first class were occupied; thus all the purser knew was someone was attempting to enter the forward cabin who clearly had no business being there.

San Diegans for Open Government v. San Diego State

California Court of Appeal · Jun 1, 2017

It is important to note the anti-SLAPP statute does not immunize or insulate Defendants from any liability for claims arising from protected activity. … Reporting the news and creating a television show both qualify as an exercise of free speech. (Hunter, supra, 221 Cal.App.4th at p. 1521.)