Case law

United States v. State Water Resources Control Board

182 Cal. App. 3d 82 · California Court of Appeal · May 28, 1986

Indeed, the federal water supply contracts reflect the parties’ understanding that the availability of supplies is uncertain: the contracts expressly *148 provide for governmental immunity from any liability to the contractors … The issue is now clearly controlled by National Audubon Society v. Superior Court, supra, 33 Cal.3d 419 , decided after the proceedings below.

People v. Quinlan

8 Cal. App. 3d 1063 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 23, 1970

The instruction given by the trial court clearly covers the issue. A court may refuse to give a defendant’s instruction on an issue where that issue is covered by other instructions. (People v. … The record brought here does not contain a reporter’s transcript of the proceedings by which original counsel was relieved and the pro. per. with advisor status was established.

Fraijo v. Superior Court

34 Cal. App. 3d 222 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 12, 1973

interference with the constitutional and orderly process of the court; stating at page 79: “But to put in the hands of a litigant uncontrolled power to dislodge without reason or for an undisclosed reason, an admittedly qualified … Thus, by comparison with the federal statute and its application by the federal courts, Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6 as invoked generally and in this case in particular clearly partakes of the character of a peremptory

Bourdieu v. Seaboard Oil Corp.

38 Cal. App. 2d 11 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 13, 1940

A., title 30, secs. 181 et seq.), under which qualified persons were permitted to enter upon such lands to prospect for oil and gas and other minerals, and, after discovery, to reenter such lands under lease from the United … It is well established that the courts of California take judicial notice of the executive acts of the government of the United States. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 1875, subd. 3; Livermore v. Beal, 18 Cal.

People v. Chevron Chemical Co.

143 Cal. App. 3d 50 · California Court of Appeal · May 18, 1983

The court noted that “ ‘where qualifying words such as knowingly, intentionally, or fraudulently are omitted from provisions creating the offense it is held that guilty knowledge and intent are not elements of the offense … What is more important, however, is that the subject matter of this statute—the prevention of adverse impacts upon California’s fish, plant life or bird life through water pollution—is clearly within the regulatory public

People v. Lindsey

84 Cal. App. 3d 851 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 14, 1978

Suzanne testified that although the lights in the residence were not on, outdoor lighting permitted her to clearly see her assailant. … In this case the fact that the accused was somewhere near the scene of the crime would not, in itself, establish a probability that he was guilty, but only a possibility, yet such evidence is clearly admissible as a link

Fait v. New Faze Development, Inc.

207 Cal. App. 4th 284 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 27, 2012

We then determine whether the moving party’s showing has established facts which justify a judgment in movant’s favor. … Under Cornelison , any waste that is not committed solely or primarily as a result of the economic pressures of a market depression qualifies as “bad faith” waste. (Cornelison v.

People v. Sheridan

136 Cal. App. 675 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 13, 1934

Applying the rule so laid down to the instant case, we are forced to conclude that there was nothing in the direct examination of defendant which the answers to the questions so objected to explained, qualified or destroyed … We also have his confession to the officers, which, if accepted by the jury, clearly established such knowledge as to all of the checks, to say nothing of the evidence connected with the passing of each instrument and appellant

People v. Perez

253 Cal. App. 2d 288 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 7, 1967

The argument that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the verdict must be considered in the light of the clearly established law that an appellate court is in no sense the trier of fact and that it does not have to … It is a basic rule that each case must depend upon its own facts; in that instance there was no testimony by a “ qualified witness,” as here, that the substance was in fact heroin.

In re Anthony

236 Cal. App. 4th 204 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 27, 2015

The court also ruled that Anthony had failed to establish actual innocence. … “‘[C]ourts are precluded from so interpreting section 1238 as to expand the People’s right of appeal into areas other than those clearly specified by the Legislature.’ [Citation.]” (People v.

People v. Spurlock

8 Cal. Rptr. 3d 372 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 15, 2003

In some circumstances, the exhibition of partially clothed genitals can constitute sexual conduct within the meaning of Penal Code sections 311.3 and 311.4; here, Spurlock’s actions in taking photographs qualify as sexual … “Clearly, the context in which the sexual conduct occurs must be considered.” (Kongs, supra, 30 Cal.App.4th at p. 1753 .)

People v. Pacheco

California Court of Appeal · Feb 15, 2022

That is the starting the brush fire intentionally,” although his acts were “clearly a result of some psychological condition or at least that’s certainly what it appears to be.” … “It is appellant’s burden on appeal to establish an abuse of discretion and prejudice.” (People v. Albarran (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 214, 225.)

McMillin v. Eare

California Court of Appeal · Oct 25, 2021

This proposition of law is clearly stated in Blackledge v. … Here, the evidence in the record establishes that Joshua and Som lived at the Anaheim property and paid the mortgage for a period of time.

Rand v. Board of Psychology

206 Cal. App. 4th 565 · California Court of Appeal · May 10, 2012

Rand misinterprets the statute as giving him immunity from discipline while acting as a special master. … The requisite logical nexus was established.

Catholic Charities v. Superior Court

109 Cal. Rptr. 2d 176 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 26, 2001

(d).) [2] Catholic Charities concedes that it does not meet any of the four criteria necessary to qualify for the religious employer exception. … That, we think, is not what the Establishment Clause stands for.

City of Palos Verdes Estates v. Willett

75 Cal. App. 2d 394 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 17, 1946

The trustee had legal title to Lot N, but its title was qualified by the right of the property owners to prevent its use for any other than park and recreation purposes. … Neither the trustee nor the city seeks in this action to establish in itself a title which will be free from such public use.

Alperson v. Mirisch Co.

250 Cal. App. 2d 84 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 13, 1967

Clearly, therefore, the existence of net profit cannot be ascertained or eliminated without first determining whether the production cost, claimed to be deductible, accorded with custom and usage in the industry. 2 The terms … (P. 730.) 4 Alperson’s counsel paid Mm the compliment of being “probably the .best agent in the business ’ ’ and “a Mghly qualified gentleman; ’ ’

People v. Tockgo

145 Cal. App. 3d 635 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 2, 1983

(b) [disclosure of privileged official information is not required to establish the legality of a search “made pursuant to a warrant valid on its face.”].) (Italics added.) B. … As restated by Justice Mosk in his Meyers opinion, "[s]ince their adoption both [the Fourth Amendment and article I, section 13 of the California Constitution] have clearly provided that the warrant —not the victims of the

Rodriguez v. Department of Real Estate

51 Cal. App. 4th 1289 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 26, 1996

The commissioner exercises no discretion, determining only whether the judgment qualifies for payment under the statute. (See § 10471.3.) … Relief is to be granted under the statute unless to do so would be clearly forbidden by that statute.

Wilson v. County of Napa

California Court of Appeal · Mar 13, 2017

After initially certifying that the initiative qualified for placement on the ballot, the registrar rejected the petition based on advice from county counsel that the measure did not comply with the full text requirement … Proponents‟ principal argument is that “the initiative on its face clearly does not enact best management practices, either expressly or otherwise.”