Case law

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.

Raven's Cove Townhomes, Inc. v. Knuppe Development Co.

114 Cal. App. 3d 783 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 20, 1981

However, we need not deal with the question of whether the Association’s cause of action for the defects in the individual units qualifies as a class action. … The above mentioned provisions of the declarations clearly authorize attorney fees on appeal for the cause of action pertaining to the breach of fiduciary duties discussed above (6 Witkin, Cal.

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 ].)

Teferi v. Ethiopian Sports Federation in North America CA2/4

California Court of Appeal · Jan 12, 2016

Teferi argues that he is a private figure and hence that the jury should have been instructed pursuant to CACI No. 1704 (elements a private figure must prove to establish defamation). We agree. … “Section 47(c) establishes that certain communications made between persons on a matter of common interest are privileged if the statements are made ‘without malice.’” (Lundquist v.

Ling v. P.F. Chang's China Bistro, Inc.

245 Cal. App. 4th 1242 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 25, 2016

All expenses incurred with respect to the alter ego issue -- common to both the note and the general line consignment agreement -- qualify for award.‖ (Reynolds, at pp. 129–130.) … The arbitrator‘s award was based on a clearly erroneous statute of limitations ruling.

Garcia v. Woods

103 Cal. App. 3d 702 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 24, 1980

Clearly the purpose of the earned income exemption is to encourage gainful employment. … We nevertheless note that such a requirement does qualify for matching federal funds.

People v. Fowler

32 Cal. App. Supp. 2d 737 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 20, 1938

Considering the first of them, the word “chiropractic” had, when this law was passed in 1922, a well-established and quite definite meaning. … App. (2d) 202, is not clearly to the contrary, but if it can be so regarded we prefer to follow the later Hartman case. If our opinion in People v. Schuster, (1932) 122 Cal. App.

People v. Kenny A.

93 Cal. Rptr. 2d 678 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 15, 2000

Qualifying for the first time as an expert in possession of marijuana for sale, Officer Discler testified that, based on the packaging and appellant’s possession of a $20 bill, he formed the opinion that the marijuana was … The court’s comments at the time of disposition clearly indicate it intended the disposition to be, for all practical purposes, a county jail commitment.

Estate of Smith

196 Cal. App. 2d 544 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 30, 1961

However, here we have a situation which constitutes more than a trust established by the court without foundation in the will. … Again, although this was an action in equity, it clearly appears that a constructive trust results from an agreement of the kind in our case.

Phillip D. Bertelsen, Inc. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Board

23 Cal. App. 4th 759 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 23, 1994

Petitioner had the burden of proof “to establish facts which would negative the existence of liability” for backpay. (Phillip D. Bertelsen, Inc. v. … Certainly, to qualify for this agricultural employer exemption, the farming operation in question need be legitimate, not merely a sham. * Retired judge of the Kern Superior Court sitting under assignment by the Chairperson

Cary v. Blodgett

10 Cal. App. 463 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 28, 1909

the objects, purposes and powers of the municipality, the cost of which will be too great to be paid out of the ordinary annual income and revenue of the municipality, ... it may call a special election and submit to the qualified … We think it was the clearly expressed purpose in this case to erect one plant, on one site, to be conducted by one management and in this manner save the expense of another plant. . . .

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.

Feurzeig v. Insurance Co. of the West

59 Cal. App. 4th 1276 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 12, 1997

Co. (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 500, 527-528 [ 42 Cal.Rptr.2d 295 ]) or by establishing an applicable affirmative defense. … However, ICW cites nothing to suggest Pringle’s testimony was in evidence, or that she was qualified to render the opinion given.

Rinker v. Rinker

California Court of Appeal · Dec 26, 2025

At the hearing, the court found Robert had presented evidence of Cindi’s “clearly obsessive behavior,” as well as “evidence that may well constitute stalking” as demonstrated by her “incessant following, knocking on doors … As it had in G.G., supra, 102 Cal.App.5th at p. 427, the court erroneously relied on its finding that Cindi did not have a malicious intent and ignored the substantial evidence of her conduct that qualifies as abuse under

People v. Taylor

6 Cal. App. 4th 1084 · California Court of Appeal · May 21, 1992

the rule of law as applied to the established facts is or is not violated.’ … should subject [the] determination to deferential, clearly erroneous review.

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.

C & C Partners, Ltd. v. Department of Industrial Relations

82 Cal. Rptr. 2d 783 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 3, 1999

This interpretation “is entitled to great weight, [being neither] clearly erroneous [n]or unauthorized. [Citation.]” (California Real Estate Loans, Inc. v. … By alleging none of its employees were affected, C & C forces the State to establish individual harm.

People v. Sorrentino

146 Cal. App. 2d 149 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 20, 1956

It is well established that the existence of a conspiracy may be established by circumstantial, as well as direct testimony. … in some degree tend to establish a conspiracy.

Boswell v. Reid

199 Cal. App. 2d 705 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 31, 1962

The findings of the court that these rights had been obtained and were available were clearly supported by the evidence. … The trial court found as an ultimate fact that defendant had failed to establish “failure of consideration” as an affirmative defense.

People ex rel. Lockyer v. Fremont Life Insurance

104 Cal. App. 4th 508 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 18, 2002

Those activities included giving of advice and the suggestions that the salespersons were able to give highly qualified expert advice and were giving such expert advice. … Appellant states respondent failed to establish that “each consumer” was actually harmed.