Case law

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).)

People v. Lee

California Court of Appeal · Jul 15, 2022

Thus, anomalously, for the same gang-related criminal conduct in which a killing occurs, a defendant could be found not to qualify for the lesser gang sentence enhancements, but nonetheless found to qualify for capital punishment … As we have discussed, that indication is clearly present in this case. V.

People Ex Rel. Public Utilities Commission v. Ryerson

241 Cal. App. 2d 115 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 24, 1966

Item 85-A provides in substance that before a shipment in multiple lots may qualify for a single shipment rate, the entire shipment must be available and tendered at one time, a single shipping document must be issued prior … It is in furtherance of the purposes of the act, among which are the establishment of just and reasonable rates and the prevention of discrimination. (Gardner v. Rich Mfg. Co., supra, p. 729.)

People v. Jones

89 Cal. Rptr. 2d 485 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 5, 1999

We agree that for the purpose of reversing the conviction for kidnapping during the commission of carjacking, we need not further elaborate on the clearly accurate contention, which follows from the holding in People v. … [T]he burglary-type offenses described in the second paragraph, while arguably establishing felony burglary in this state (§§ 459-461; [case citations omitted]), do not establish the applicable serious felony, ‘burglary of

Preston v. Hubbell

87 Cal. App. 2d 53 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 2, 1948

Other qualified experts testified to the same effect. The jurors were fully warranted in giving full effect to this testimony in determining that defendant was guilty of no breach of duty. … and that said negligence, or any of it, contributed even in a small degree to the accident, then neither of the plaintiffs can recover, and your verdict must be for the defendant. ’ This portion of said instruction is so clearly

Bank of America v. Koslow

117 Cal. App. 3d 915 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 10, 1981

“These decisions establish two standards for antitrust immunity .... … This factual record, establishing what this Bank’s practice is in hiring counsel for executors, is insufficient to establish a form of conspiracy falling within the purview of the Sherman Act.

Johnson v. Superior Court

49 Cal. Rptr. 3d 52 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 31, 2006

The post plan studies showed quite clearly that the rectum received far more than the recommended upper safe limit—as much as twice—in parts of the rectum. … Kim’s declaration was insufficient because it failed to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2015.5, 3 4 failed to properly qualify Dr.

Sanchez v. State of California

179 Cal. App. 4th 467 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 19, 2009

California established the State School Facilities Fund (the State Fund) to pay for school construction projects. (§§ 17070.40, subd. (a)(1), 17070.63, subd. (a).) … The clause prohibits the state from granting a citizen, or class of citizens, “privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens.” (Cal. Const., art. I, § 7, subd.

Castelo v. Xceed Financial Credit Union

California Court of Appeal · May 18, 2023

section 1668, which, according to Castelo, prohibits any agreement which seeks to exempt a party from future statutory violations. 6  Xceed argued undisputed extrinsic evidence established … The Agreement did not have, as its purpose, the immunization of Xceed from liability for a future violation of law.

Guardianship of Levy

137 Cal. App. 2d 237 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 25, 1955

In the case sul judice, the court was clearly imposed upon by Mrs. Stogsdill both in her petition and in her testimony at the ex parte application. … This argument is clearly untenable.

People v. Mitchell

197 Cal. App. 2d 493 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 30, 1961

“The Defendant: I told him I didn’t believe this gentlemen was qualified and could meet the standards of the prosecutor. So far, I don’t think he have. … Mattson (1959), supra, 51 Cal.2d [777 ( 336 P.2d 937 )] at pp. 788-789 [1], 794 [18], the entire record establishes that defendant was fully aware of his situation when he insisted upon representing himself, and the court

Jones v. Southern Pacific Co.

74 Cal. App. 10 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 28, 1925

In that case, the undisputed evidence established that warning signals were given. … It clearly implies that deceased did not use his eyes and ears while working, and that he failed to *46 exercise care. It is hypothetically argumentative, and does not include all qualifying facts essential.

People v. Talley

172 Cal. App. Supp. 2d 797 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 17, 1958

Again, as the cases already cited clearly establish, the protection of the two Constitutions is against adverse action by city legislative bodies as well as by state legislatures. … It must be conceded, of course, that neither freedom of speech nor of the press is immune from every restriction.

Stockton Newspapers, Inc. v. Superior Court

206 Cal. App. 3d 966 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 20, 1988

Thus, if a false utterance is made at a qualified proceeding, subdivision 4 affords an absolute privilege for its accurate republication. … We do not resolve the predicate question whether a police interrogation qualifies as an “other public official proceeding” (see, e.g., Ascherman v.

Environmental Law Foundation v. Wykle Research, Inc.

35 Cal. Rptr. 3d 788 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 17, 2005

The message must clearly communicate that the chemical in question is known to the state to cause cancer, or birth defects or other reproductive harm. . . .” … Section 12601 was not intended “to establish a hierarchy of required warnings, just ‘safe harbors.’

West Adams Heritage Assn. v. City of Los Angeles

California Court of Appeal · Oct 31, 2024

Notably, the developer in Russian Hill was denied immunity from changes in the law because the developer’s application was pending administrative appeal. … (a)) to which the project must conform to qualify for the Class 32 CEQA exemption. (See Wollmer v.

Schaefer v. Superior Court

113 Cal. App. 2d 428 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 1, 1952

the counts to which he pleaded guilty it was alleged that embezzlement, a felony, was committed by petitioner, who was then “an officer of the State of California Department of Employment, to wit, the duly appointed and qualified … If a defendant is to be denied permission to apply for probation, upon the ground that the circumstances of his case bring him within an exception to the basic rule that he may apply for probation, it should appear clearly

People v. Fraser

42 Cal. Rptr. 3d 424 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 28, 2006

After a hearing, the trial court found that there was probable cause to believe that defendant had been convicted of two qualifying sexually violent offenses against at least two victims, that he had a- diagnosable mental … As in Sharp , the asserted error “clearly could not have resulted in a miscarriage of justice.” ( Sharp, supra, 7 Cal.3d at pp. 462-463.) C.

Greene v. MARIN CTY. FLOOD CONTROL & WATER CONSERVATION DIST.

171 Cal. App. 4th 1458 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 11, 2009

The initiative imposed new procedural requirements on increases in assessments, which were clearly intended to supersede the existing statutory procedures. … "Voting" is not qualified in article II, section 7 to make it inapplicable to a fee election, and "election" and "vote" are not qualified in article XIII D, section 6(c) to make article II, section 7 inapplicable.

Kaufmann v. Nilan

207 Cal. App. 2d 1 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 20, 1962

The second ground is stated in the findings, as follows: “Without in any way modifying, qualifying or altering any of the findings herein the Court finds that the defendant Marie Nilan by refusing to sell the aforementioned … The rule is established in this state that where an agent produces a purchaser ready, willing and able to purchase substantially upon the authorized terms, and the vendor fails to reject the offer on the ground of its variance