Case law

People v. Chandra CA1/3

California Court of Appeal · Jun 16, 2015

Although defendant testified that he did not invite Saga into his home, he clearly invited Hudieb into the garage. … Defendant notes that the immunity given Hudieb included not just immunity from prosecution for a drug offense, but immunity from prosecution for all offenses other than perjury, including aiding and abetting murder.

Jones v. Solgen Construction

California Court of Appeal · Feb 26, 2024

When Ware returned, he explained in detail the solar programs in the state, how the programs work, and how Jones could qualify for solar installation. … Aspects of these recordings are clearly favorable to Jones.

Coastside Fishing Club v. California Resources Agency

71 Cal. Rptr. 3d 87 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 14, 2008

Many of these MPAs lack clearly defined purposes, effective management measures and enforcement. … Noting that the doctrine is well established in California, he emphasized that its scope has been limited by several equally well-established principles.

Fielder v. City of Los Angeles

14 Cal. App. 4th 137 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 26, 1993

Section 1 of article XIII A establishes a ceiling on the amount of any ad valorem tax on real property of 1 percent of the cash value of the property, subject to specific exceptions. … The subject of the preceding clause clearly is “special taxes,” not any taxes.

People v. Fox

224 Cal. App. 4th 424 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 5, 2014

"[The court]: That was my understanding as well, that as it is, it would qualify as a naked, as Mr. … The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Fox probation The trial court clearly did not abuse its discretion in denying Fox probation.

Shirran v. Dallas

21 Cal. App. 405 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 7, 1913

This is sufficient evidence that the requisite proof was produced to establish the genuineness of the signatures of the defendants to their admission. … From the foregoing provisions of the indenture these propositions are clearly and unmistakably deducible: 1.

Chula v. Superior Court

109 Cal. App. 2d 24 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 29, 1952

They may or they may not; I will have to qualify that. I can’t say yes or no, some do, some don’t. . . . “Q. Now a person who has schizophrenia, how does that affect their mental capacity ? “Mr. … As to the latter’s claim (No. 4) a mere recitation of the dialogue between the parties clearly shows that Mr.

Oziel v. Superior Court

223 Cal. App. 3d 1284 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 17, 1990

“The unambiguous language of the statute 5 speaks clearly on this point and it expressly exempts the state courts from the provisions of the Act. … a qualified right of access to search warrant proceedings and materials while a pre-indictment investigation is still ongoing.

Van Dorn v. Couch

21 Cal. App. Supp. 2d 749 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 29, 1937

The court there said further, on this point, "It is not to be supposed that the preservative right established by the statute under view was only intended to be declared, and not the subject of such nondamnifying, temporary … It is clearly not the conventional relation of landlord and tenant for there is no contract as to the realty. (Taylor, Land. & T., sec. 66.)

Centeno v. Roseville Community Hospital

107 Cal. App. 3d 62 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 6, 1979

. *67 The contract was introduced into evidence and the testimony further establishes its execution and performance. … Barnett (1959) 52 Cal.2d 154, 160 [ 338 P.2d 907 ].) *68 The contract clearly specifies the rights of the parties and, although not setting forth a definite termination date, clearly provides for a year-to-year term.

Estate of Rowley

257 Cal. App. 2d 324 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 22, 1967

The objection was based on the failure to qualify the coroner as an expert in the law of physics or dynamics and transference of pressure and force. … This thesis was clearly rejected by the trial court and it is not necessary to determine whether the evidence would have supported such a finding. [fn. 4] 4.

Green v. Green CA2/2

California Court of Appeal · Mar 13, 2024

Jager opined that, for federal tax purposes, payments received are presumed to be taxable income unless they qualify for an exception. … , clearly vexatious, or brought primarily for purposes of harassment.”

French v. Construction Laborers Pension Trust

44 Cal. App. 3d 479 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 14, 1975

The pension trust was established October 16, 1962, under the provisions of the TaftHartley Act, 29 United States Code, section 186 . … There was substantial evidence which clearly supports the conclusion of the trial court that M & M and Administrator and Trust clearly believed at the time M & M was accepted into membership in the modified pension plan that

The People v. Lester

California Court of Appeal · Oct 7, 2013

However, looking at the information conveyed to voters, that was clearly not the intent of the initiative. … It is certainly not so clear as to qualify as the functional equivalent of a saving clause.

KCSFV I, LLC v. Florin County Water District

California Court of Appeal · May 28, 2021

The plain language of the provision clearly contradicts this argument. … Unless an award is ‘clearly wrong,’ no such abuse of discretion can be demonstrated. [Citation.]

Worsley v. Municipal Court

122 Cal. App. 3d 409 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 10, 1981

These clearly designate the accused’s constitutional rights and require the defendant to acknowledge the waiver of those rights by initialing them. (See Mills v. … Coffey, supra, 67 Cal.2d 204 , asserting that though Coffey placed the burden of proof on the prosecution, it did not establish so rigid a requirement of proof as insisted upon by section 23102.2.

People v. Santamaria

229 Cal. App. 3d 269 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 12, 1991

If there was any established necessity for the delay, it is not apparent from this record. … We believe that at no time is it more essential that the jury should be immunized from such influences than when it is deliberating on its verdict.

People v. Wilkes

177 Cal. App. 2d 691 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 8, 1960

Thus viewed, the evidence is clearly sufficient to sustain the conviction. The meeting of Mrs. Muise and Benson with defendant; the statements of defendant as testified to by them; the state of Mrs. … He also says that his testimony as to her physical condition and the necessity to give her the treatments that he did in order to save her life, is not contradicted by any other expert or person qualified to do so.

Jurcoane v. Superior Court

113 Cal. Rptr. 2d 483 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 7, 2001

“‘Interpretation and applicability of a statute or ordinance is clearly a question of law.’ [Citation.] … “(c) A proceeding brought by or on behalf of a spouse to establish his or her competence.

Searcy v. Hemet Unified School District

177 Cal. App. 3d 792 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 20, 1986

The special relationship doctrine may serve as the basis for establishing negligence and liability on the part of a school district for breach of the long-established duty of schools to supervise students in their charge … Even if such a duty could be imposed independently of statute or “enactment,” County and CHP clearly do not occupy the kind of relationship that would trigger a duty under Tarasoff . (See generally Thompson v.