Case law

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

Estate of Cummings

23 Cal. App. 3d 617 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 22, 1972

He qualified and served as such for about three years. On his deathbed, John made gifts in contemplation of death valued at $416,137.20 to Ronald, Ronald’s wife, and to another daughter. … The case of Estate of Sherman (1936) 5 Cal.2d 730 [ 56 P.2d 230 ], is clearly distinguishable on the facts.

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

Halvorson v. Colyear

17 Cal. App. 3d 173 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 27, 1971

Though there is a greater sharing by the successor trustee in the remainder than in the income, this was clearly within the contemplation of the trustor, and any conflict was one contemplated by that trustor, and not one … with or, unless otherwise stated hereinafter, without the interposition of a trust; except that in the establishment of the principal provision may be made touching all matters covered by this chapter, and the person establishing

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.

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.

Comstock v. Aber

212 Cal. App. 4th 931 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 18, 2012

Both statutes mandate reports to the government; both provide immunity for reporters. … It did not establish that he was acting on a matter of public interest. (Id. at pp. 1132, 1134.)

Orange Cty. Water Dist. v. Ass'n of Cal. Water Agencies Joint Powers Ins. Auth.

54 Cal. App. 4th 772 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 28, 1997

Summary judgment is granted when the evidence establishes there is no material issue of fact to be tried. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c.) … FIC counters that we should, by resorting to the legislative history of the enactment of section 990.8, subdivision (c), interpret the section as meaning something other than what it so *778 clearly states.

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.’

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.

American National Property & Casualty Co. v. Julie R.

90 Cal. Rptr. 2d 119 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 8, 1999

Clearly the parties to an automobile liability policy do not contemplate a general liability insurance contract.” (Truck Ins. Exch. v. Webb, supra, 256 Cal.App.2d at p. 145 .) … This use of the vehicle was insufficient to qualify as a substantial factor in causing the injury.

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.

McClure v. Board of Education

38 Cal. App. 500 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 24, 1918

Said Civic Center Act provides: “There is hereby established a civic center at each and every public sehoolhouse within the state of California, where the citizens of the respective public school districts . . . may engage … Thus, it is claimed, has the board clearly transgressed, and will continue to transgress, this statutory limitation upon its authority.

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.

Party City Corp. v. Superior Court

169 Cal. App. 4th 497 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 19, 2008

Reed (2003) 31 Cal.4th 657, 663 [ 3 Cal.Rptr.3d 390 , 74 P.3d 166 ] (Mejia), our Supreme Court set out well-established rules of statutory construction that are designed to enable the courts to “ ‘ascertain the intent of … Linder, supra, 23 Cal.4th 429 , and the language of section 1747.08, subdivision (e) therefore establish only that the amounts of the otherwise mandatory penalties to be awarded are discretionary, and a “range of penalties

B.B. v. County of Los Angeles

California Court of Appeal · Aug 9, 2018

The jury was properly instructed with respect to noneconomic damages, and nothing in the record clearly establishes the jury relied upon improper considerations. … A “result which requires reversal should clearly appear from the record.

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. Anderson

236 Cal. App. 2d 419 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 9, 1965

It is essentially a denial qualified with a repeated “I don’t remember.” … However, as to the second count with which defendant was charged, namely, the possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, the statement is clearly a confession.

Cornelius v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority

49 Cal. App. 4th 1761 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 17, 1996

The issue of what type of tax the plaintiff must pay in order to have standing under Code of Civil Procedure section 526a has never been clearly resolved. … That element is clearly lacking here.

Whitfield v. Debrincat

18 Cal. App. 2d 730 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 28, 1937

But, in relaxing the rule, it should be done only where the surprise is clearly established, and the consequences of it can be avoided on another trial; and it must also be apparent that the party has not been guilty of laches … Dec. 516 ].) *737 Even the Schellhous case, supra, so strongly relied upon by appellant, qualifies the rule requiring the necessity for immediate action in ease of surprise by the limitation that the party claiming relief