Case law

People v. Vega-Robles

California Court of Appeal · May 5, 2015

The burden is on the party seeking bifurcation to clearly establish there is a substantial danger of prejudice requiring the charges be separately tried. (Id. at p. 1050.) … While the foregoing sentence appears to be categorical, in context it was clearly meant to summarize the evidence adduced at Price’s trial.

Henderson v. Superior Court

77 Cal. App. 3d 583 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 15, 1978

Sometime in 1975 plaintiff qualified as a professional horse trainer and began to train race horses. … Under the facts established at bench, California has no general jurisdiction over defendant.

Earl Scheib, Inc. v. Superior Court

253 Cal. App. 2d 703 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 18, 1967

In that ease the court held (p. 118) that the contract to represent defendant was clearly “against public policy and void,” and affirmed the judgment. Hammett v. … In the absence of any proof to the contrary, if it is established that the attorney is in fact undertaking to represent conflicting interests, injury to the former client must be presumed to have resulted by reason of such

Goss v. Edwards

68 Cal. App. 3d 264 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 21, 1977

The trial court applied well-established principles of contract law and family law in reaching a conclusion not challenged by anyone, namely, that the property settlement agreement was integrated and that the voting trust … This statute is wholly inapplicable since plaintiff has no other statutory or common law remedies based on failure to qualify the security, except the remedy provided by section 25503 and limited by section 25507, subdivision

Dowhal v. SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CONSUMER

122 Cal. Rptr. 2d 246 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 23, 2002

Proposition 65 comes within this exception and is apparently the only state initiative to qualify. [3] There is no doubt that this saving clause permits California, when acting pursuant to Proposition 65, to require label … While smoking has clearly been associated with fetal harm, the contribution of nicotine has not been clearly delineated.... [¶] ... [¶] ...

People v. Thompson

69 Cal. App. 2d 80 · California Court of Appeal · May 1, 1945

In his closing brief, for the first time, the appellant argues that the corpus delicti was not established. … We are satisfied the corpus delicti was adequately established in this case.

Lucent Technologies v. State Board of Equaliz.

California Court of Appeal · Nov 3, 2015

Third, even if the contracts qualify as technology transfer agreements, AT&T/Lucent did not sufficiently establish the cost of developing the software, and thus the entire transaction should be taxable. … Nothing in sections 6011 or 6012 requires any greater granularity of proof than was established here.

Civil Service Commission v. Superior Court

163 Cal. App. 3d 70 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 21, 1984

The lack of disclosure here strongly indicates that any consent given by the Commission was not an informed one. 6 In any event, it clearly mandates that the scope of any claimed consent be narrowly construed against county … But neither are they immune from conflict problems similar to those which confront the private bar.

People v. Camino

188 Cal. App. 4th 1359 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 4, 2010

Granted, the transcript of the second interview would have more clearly demonstrated the overlapping content of the two interviews. … David testified at trial in return for use immunity and the dismissal of his probation violation for possessing a gun while a gang member.

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

Central Coast Forest Assn. v. Fish & Game Com.

California Court of Appeal · Jan 5, 2018

The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that a delisting petition may be based on new evidence that challenges an earlier listing decision by showing that the listed species does not qualify for listing. … This finding has important legal, conservation, and management implications [citation] in establishing coho as a native species.”

Neville v. Chudacoff

160 Cal. App. 4th 1255 · 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.)

California Veterinary Medical Ass'n v. City of West Hollywood

61 Cal. Rptr. 3d 318 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 22, 2007

The Legislature has no doubt preempted discrete areas impacting the practice of veterinary medicine (most clearly licensing and enforcement of sanitary standards), 15 but not the entire field. … Hollywood could adopt an ordinance that prohibited animal owners from performing and from requesting that a veterinarian perform a onychectomy or flexor tendonectomy for nontherapeutic purposes, provided the law adequately immunized

Estate of Lando

7 Cal. App. 3d 8 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 28, 1970

It would unreasonably advance form over substance to hold that such a mistaken belief, if it existed, would defeat the testator's clearly, and otherwise validly, expressed testamentary intent. … This conclusion is consistent with the long-established rule that the presence of the signatures of witnesses will not invalidate an otherwise effective holographic will, `even though the testator believed the attestation

R.R. v. C.R.

California Court of Appeal · Jan 20, 2026

There is nothing in the record to establish that this evidence was before the family court at the time it made the ruling at issue, and therefore we cannot consider it. … supra, 102 Cal.App.5th at p. 427, the court erroneously relied on its finding that C.R. did not have a malicious intent and 12 ignored the substantial evidence of her conduct that qualifies

People v. Stamps

California Court of Appeal · Apr 9, 2019

The policy applies retroactively to all persons who meet the qualifying criteria and are serving a prison sentence for one of those convictions, whether the conviction was by trial or plea. … The court’s acceptance of the negotiated sentence, however, does not clearly establish that the court would not have exercised discretion to strike the enhancement if it had that discretion.

Donald Schriver, Inc. v. Fair Employment & Housing Commission

220 Cal. App. 3d 396 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 9, 1986

An abuse of discretion is ‘discretion exercised to an end or purpose not justified by and clearly against reason, all of the facts and circumstances being considered.’ (Brown v. … was qualified; and (2) that plaintiff failed to use reasonable care and diligence in seeking such a position.”

De Paolo v. Rosales

California Court of Appeal · Jan 27, 2026

“The parties’ agreement clearly stated that Defendant Rosales’ occupancy was dependent upon the continuation of the employer-employee relationship and that when the 6 employer-employee … In order to qualify as a tenancy within the meaning of the TPA, the occupant’s occupation of the premises must be lawful. (Civ. Code § 1946.2, subd. (k)(3).)

Estate of Wynne

239 Cal. App. 2d 369 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 13, 1966

Wynne died on the 23d day of November 1962, in Kern County, that the will and the two codicils had been admitted to probate, and that letters testamentary were issued to Bennett Siemon, the qualified and acting executor of … In other words, the evidence must establish that the will itself was a product of the delusion in order to warrant a setting aside of a will.

People v. Dimitrov

33 Cal. App. 4th 18 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 15, 1995

McPeters, supra, 2 Cal.4th 1148, 1171 , citations omitted, original italics.) (2c) Appellant did not establish standing. … It may be directed to the eliciting of any matter which may tend to overcome or qualify the effect of the testimony given by him on direct examination.’ ” (People v.