Case law

People v. Bartlett CA4/3

California Court of Appeal · Apr 12, 2016

offenders who took the same vehicle under Penal Code section 487, such a classification denied equal protection as the vehicle 2 taking offender is clearly … There is nothing in Bartlett’s plea or any finding of fact that establishes the vehicle had a value of $950 or less.

Purdue Frederick Co. v. State Board of Equalization

218 Cal. App. 3d 1021 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 14, 1990

PFC paid the tax under protest, contending that the other uses also qualified for the exemption. PFC exhausted its administrative remedies and filed an action for a sales tax refund. … The facts establish that Betadine meets the criteria set forth in section 6369.

Issac v. City of Los Angeles

77 Cal. Rptr. 2d 752 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 21, 1998

XIV), (2) violated California statutory law establishing the priority of liens (see, e.g., Rev. & Tax. Code, § 2192.1), and (3) violated the California Constitution’s prohibition against special taxes (Cal. Const., art. … Special taxes are prohibited by article XIII A, section 4 of the California Constitution unless approved by a two-thirds vote of the qualified electors of the entity (city, county, or special district) seeking to impose the

People v. Corban

42 Cal. Rptr. 3d 184 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 21, 2006

Breckenridge (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 1096 , 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 1 ( Breckenridge ) which involved admissions of prior serious felony enhancements. [2] *188 The defendant in Arwood argued that his prior conviction did not qualify as … The court rejected his argument that Vehicle Code statutes established a specific sentencing scheme for his offense that precluded imposition of the enhancement.

Stewart v. Rolling Stone LLC

181 Cal. App. 4th 664 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 28, 2010

Such a basis for regulation clearly would be incompatible with the First Amendment.” (Id. at p. 385, italics added.) … Plaintiffs do not contest the trial court’s finding that they qualify as “limited purpose public figures.” 15 *683 Even commercial speech is entitled to a measure of First Amendment protection.

People v. Matthews

229 Cal. App. 3d 930 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 15, 1991

But, Guerrero clearly established the rule that the People are precluded from relitigating the circumstances of a past offense “ ‘by introducing evidence outside the record. [Citation.]’ {Id. at p. 344, fn. 6.)” … He was not identified as the legal custodian of the records, or even a deputy, so as to establish his authority to provide the requisite certification. (Cf. Whitson v.

People v. White

233 Cal. App. 2d 765 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 22, 1965

At his trial, it was established by affirmative evidence that he was not advised of his constitutional rights to counsel and to remain silent. … In the case at bench, the confessions given to the deputy sheriffs were given at their request, and clearly because the officers then had drawn the bead of their suspicions on the defendant only.

People v. Saleem

180 Cal. App. 4th 254 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 17, 2009

As such a term is clearly within the common knowledge, there is nothing vague about the law. … intelligence, would have any reasonable way of knowing his vest met the far more stringent requirements necessary to qualify as "body armor" under section 12370.

Faus v. Nelson

241 Cal. App. 2d 320 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 4, 1966

The highway is a monument, and in legal contemplation the thread of the highway is the monument, unless a contrary intention clearly appears. That this is the rule is established by a multitude of authorities.” … There is no reason why a railroad right-of-way cannot serve as a monument in the same fashion as a highway and why the boundary cannot be presumed to be the “thread” of the right-of-way. 4 “In the absence of any qualifying

Los Angeles Gas & Electric Corp. v. City Council

18 Cal. App. 2d 97 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 10, 1936

This clearly appears from the exceptions contained in the act including “other than expenditures to pay interest and redemption charges on bonds heretofore or hereafter issued” and “or to any additional expenditures . . . … If we assume without holding that the levy contemplated by this provision of the 1915 bond act might technically be said to take the form of establishing a fund for the purchase of real property rather than being for the

W. P. Fuller & Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission

211 Cal. App. 2d 9 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 18, 1962

The officials of the Commission with their great experience in handling matters involving injuries to workmen are of necessity better qualified than the average layman to pass upon such questions. … The evidence in this case clearly shows Cassidy’s condition resulted from his injuries and from the other causes.

Northwood Homes, Inc. v. Town of Moraga

216 Cal. App. 3d 1197 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 21, 1989

called upon to decide the valicjity of a local initiative ordinance prohibiting issuance of further residential building permits until local schools, sewers and water supplies met certain standards. *1202 In reaffirming the established … The qualified initiative measure was subsequently adopted by the voters. Thereafter, the city refused to proceed with the developer’s applications for a final tract map and building permits.

San Bernardino Cty. Flood Control Dist. v. Superior Court of San Bernardino Cty.

269 Cal. App. 2d 514 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 6, 1969

It contends that the right of one public agency, by eminent domain, to impose a public servitude on an existing public servitude when the uses are compatible is recognized both by judicially established principles and by … The court held that the last sentence of subdivisions 3 of sections 1240 and 1241 of the Code of Civil Procedure immunized property appropriated to the use of a county from condemnation by a municipal water district and that

People v. Brown

92 Cal. Rptr. 2d 433 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 1, 2000

In the unpublished portion of this opinion, we consider Brown’s claim that the prosecutor and the trial court erred in refusing to grant immunity to a defense witness. … Thus, he claims, “due process requires that the court explain to the jury specifically which crimes the prior incidents may be used to inferentially establish.”

Walsh v. Board of Administration of Public Employees' Retirement System

4 Cal. App. 4th 682 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 13, 1992

Constitutional decisions ‘have never given a law which imposes unforeseen advantages or burdens on a contracting party constitutional immunity against change.’ ” (Lyon v. … That this is undoubtedly correct is established by reference to the terms of former article IV, section 4.

People v. Huynh

California Court of Appeal · Jan 19, 2018

Citing Grubb, the King court noted that a baseball bat or table leg, each of which has a utilitarian purpose, may qualify as a billy. (Id. at p. 624.) … , or any hammer for that matter, may qualify as an “instrument … of the kind commonly known as billy” under section 22210.

Mesnick v. Caton

183 Cal. App. 3d 1248 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 31, 1986

It seems neither logical nor just that disuse and inactivity should belatedly qualify defendant for a prescriptive easement over plaintiff’s property. … To be entitled *1263 to relief on appeal from the result of an alleged abuse of discretion it must clearly appear that the injury resulting from such a wrong is sufficiently grave to amount to a manifest miscarriage of justice

Mosser Companies v. San Francisco Rent Stabilization & Arbitration Board

233 Cal. App. 4th 505 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 21, 2015

Although a compelling policy argument can be made for qualifying rent control restrictions when a tenancy passes from one generation to the next, the current statute incorporates no such qualification. … The court pointed out that the rent ordinance “clearly focuses on occupancy as the factor which triggers rent control protection.” (Id. at p. 493.)

People v. Coddington

California Court of Appeal · Nov 2, 2023

The case establishing the basis of this appeal arose in connection with an incident in October 2016 in which he attacked a fellow inmate at the Del Norte County Jail. … This focus on the retroactivity of Senate Bill No. 136 indicates the Legislature was clearly concerned with eliminating prison priors, the sole subject of Senate Bill No. 136.

San Bernardino County Bd. of Supervisors v. Monell

California Court of Appeal · May 25, 2023

Both the first and second sentences must be read as qualified by the second. … The Board’s evidence fails to establish that Measure K will necessarily violate superseding federal and state law.