Case law

Harmon v. Super. Ct.

California Court of Appeal · Jan 20, 2026

The jury also found that he committed a qualifying sex offense against multiple victims under the one strike law. (Id., § 667.61, subd. (e)(4).) … We concluded that the amendment “clearly broaden[ed] the scope of the statute,” and counsel “was representing his client in a ‘criminal trial, proceeding or appeal’” when he prosecuted the writ petitions.

Grafilo v. Soorani

California Court of Appeal · Oct 29, 2019

It is well established that the right to privacy extends to medical records (Cross v. … Klessig was not qualified to opine on the standard of care applicable to a psychiatrist.

Steele v. Collagen Corp.

54 Cal. App. 4th 1474 · California Court of Appeal · May 15, 1997

Congressman Dingell expressed concern that Zyderm caused adverse reactions in the immune system. After reconsidering Collagen Corporation's application, the FDA determined the market approval for Zyderm was appropriate. … It stated: "Given the ambiguities in the statute and the scope of the preclusion that would occur otherwise, we cannot accept Medtronic's argument that by using the term `requirement' [in § 360k(a)], Congress clearly signaled

County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles

71 Cal. App. 3d 185 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 27, 1977

We shall not extend this opinion by narrating the history of Los Angeles’ acquisition of extensive lands and water rights in the Owens Valley and its establishment of a system for exporting water to the City of Los Angeles … It does not qualify the concept of average rate by a time factor. It utilizes the wavering adverb “reasonably” to describe the baseline average.

McKell v. Washington Mutual, Inc.

142 Cal. App. 4th 1457 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 18, 2006

According to Freddie Mac, for every $400 reduction in closing costs, another 70,000 families qualify to purchase a home. … Thus, by addressing plaintiffs’ UCL claims, we are doing no more than enforcing already-established economic policies.

People v. Jackson

190 Cal. App. 4th 918 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 8, 2010

Appellant contends that the jury instructions on the elements of burglary erroneously imposed a presumption that the balcony in this case qualified as a building for purposes of Penal Code section 459. … Schipper clearly held a “possessory interest” in the balcony. (Id. at p. 11.) Appellant’s reliance on People v. Brown (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1489 [ 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 513 ] is unavailing.

People v. Renaud CA3

California Court of Appeal · Mar 14, 2016

“Although section 11362.775 clearly provides for collective cultivation, it does not specify what the Legislature meant by an association of persons who engage in collective or cooperative cultivation for medical purposes … (Qualified Patients Assn. v. City of Anaheim (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 734, 748.)

Redondo Beach Waterfront, LLC v. City of Redondo Beach

California Court of Appeal · Jul 9, 2020

The statutory scheme, however, clearly distinguishes between them. … Although this principle is well established, it is inapplicable here and, in any event, Sweetwater is distinguishable.

640 Tenth, LP v. Newsom

California Court of Appeal · May 13, 2022

. [¶] “Nothing related to the establishment or implementation of . . . criteria or procedures [established by the Public Health Officer], or any other aspect of this Order, shall be subject … The Governor’s order is clearly not about internal management of local government.

People v. Gibbs

12 Cal. App. 3d 526 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 29, 1970

He suffered no prejudice between the time of his arraignment and the time his waiver was established as a matter of record. … The boundaries of the doctrine adumbrated in Daniels and Williams are not yet clearly defined.

People v. Russell

28 Cal. Rptr. 3d 862 · California Court of Appeal · May 23, 2005

If, as the several cases discussed above suggest, a stationary object can qualify as a “deadly weapon” when a defendant forcefully pushes a victim against it, a fortiori, a moving object can be considered a “deadly” weapon … Intentionally pushing a person in front of a moving vehicle is clearly more likely to cause great bodily injury than pushing a person who happens to then fall into a street at a time when a car happens to arrive.

LaBarbera v. Security Nat. Ins. Co.

California Court of Appeal · Dec 28, 2022

The trial court disagreed, finding Security National had met its burden of establishing the conditions were not waived. … But where, as here, the terms of the policy are undisputed, we independently consider whether LaBarbera qualified as a third party beneficiary. (Parsons v. Bristol Development Co. (1965) 62 Cal.2d 861, 865-866.)

People v. Pena

151 Cal. App. 3d 462 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 31, 1984

Ambrosio, Sr., was therefore clearly entitled to assert the lawyer-client privilege. … The court’s decision was not clearly erroneous, for the relevance of the proffered testimony is unclear.

Chantiles v. Lake Forest II Master Homeowners Ass'n

37 Cal. App. 4th 914 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 7, 1995

The member may give a proxy to a person or the inspector of elections for the sole purpose of establishing a quorum so the annual meeting may go forward. … To now give Chantiles personal access to the names of those voting and how they voted certainly violates well-established social norms. The trial court offered a reasonable resolution.

Juarez v. San Bernardino City Unified Sch. Dist.

California Court of Appeal · Nov 25, 2024

County of Tuolumne (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 1005, 1015 [officers are not immune from liability under Government Code section 820.2 when using unreasonable force when making an arrest or overcoming resistance to it].) … [holding that school district was not a “business establishment” under the Unruh Act]; K.M. v.

Santa Clarita Org. for Planning etc. v. Abercrombie

California Court of Appeal · Sep 22, 2015

(c)), each of which constitutes a “financial interest” under section 87103; (2) Abercrombie’s involvement in the negotiations qualifies as “participat[ion] in making a governmental decision” (2 Cal. … More specifically, section 15.2, subdivision (d) “takes away” 20 from section 87100’s reach by immunizing the conflict of interest that would otherwise be proscribed by section

People v. Weaver

58 Cal. Rptr. 3d 18 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 9, 2007

conviction where there is only one qualifying injury, it could have said so.” … Nor does any other language in the statute clearly limit the number of subdivision (d) enhancements that may be imposed based on a single gunfire injury.” (People v.

White v. Dorfman

116 Cal. App. 3d 892 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 13, 1981

Respondents’ house was completed in February 1979, and was built to a height of 17 feet above the original grade level, well within the 22-foot restriction in paragraph 111(b) but clearly blocking appellants’ *896 panoramic … Code, § 3534, “Particular words qualify those which are general.”) This rule is also applicable to the construction of deeds. (Bader v. Coale (1941) 48 Cal.App.2d 276, 279 [ 119 P.2d 763 ].)

Arques v. National Superior Co.

67 Cal. App. 2d 763 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 1, 1945

. §971 ) completely established the federal maritime lien, making it independent of possession. … Caldwell, 55 Cal.App.2d 238, 254 [ 130 P.2d 495 ], “In the ease of the conduct of the business and affairs of an establishment, it is presumed that the regular course of business of *778 such establishment is followed (Code

Colores v. Board of Trustees of the California State University

130 Cal. Rptr. 2d 347 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 18, 2003

Such evidence would clearly support a jury’s conclusion that the actions taken against plaintiff were in retaliation for her whistleblowing activity. 5. … establish damages caused by the university.