Case law

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.

YKA Industries, Inc. v. Redevelopment Agency of City of San Jose

174 Cal. App. 4th 339 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 28, 2009

exhaust judicial remedies”; (2) any “withholding of payments to YKA did not occur under color of state law”; (3) “YKA had an adequate post-deprivation remedy by seeking recovery from the [developer]”; and (4) Grayson “[was] immune … And in its reply brief, YKA made a similar statement, which was followed by the qualifier that “if mandate is an ineffective remedy, the reason for the rule ceases.” 31 We emphasize that on summary judgment, we, like the

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.

Save the Agoura Cornell Knoll v. City of Agoura Hills

California Court of Appeal · Mar 17, 2020

A similar observation was made in the 2008 AVSP EIR, which noted that “most of the attempts to re-establish Lyon’s pentachaeta have failed.” … The record shows, however, the City clearly was apprised of the issue.

Hughes v. Potomac Insurance

199 Cal. App. 2d 239 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 18, 1962

The rule is well established that any ambiguity or uncertainty in an insurance policy is to be resolved against the insurer. … It must first be noted that appellant’s policy provides for the appointment of two qualified appraisers to determine the “actual cash value” of each item.

Terry v. Terry

80 Cal. App. 4th 921 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 18, 2000

(Id. at pp. 736-738 [holding that there was no competent proof to support the items of expense claimed by the wife, and that husband clearly did not have the ability to pay even the $720 in support ordered by the trial court … The former are clearly questions of *938 law subject to independent review. (Simpson v. Unemployment Ins. Comp. Appeals Bd. (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 342, 350 [ 231 Cal.Rptr. 690 ].)

People v. Apodaca

16 Cal. App. 4th 1706 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 11, 1993

Sergeant Lavin, qualified as an expert in narcotics detection and pay/owe records, opined that the sheet was a pay/owe record. … The defense tried to establish that defendant had no connection to whatever narcotics activity was taking place at the motel.

Winter v. City of Los Angeles

96 Cal. App. 4th 1058 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 8, 2002

whether inactive duty constitutes an absence within the meaning of rule 5.26, a December 6, 1993 personnel memorandum from the city’s human resources bureau addresses the point: “Special Order No. 11 dated May 25, 1993, established … The Personnel Department has determined that inactive duty status does not qualify as an ‘absence’ and has prohibited the Department from extending the probationary period under these circumstances. [¶] Effective immediately

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.

People v. Travis

129 Cal. App. 2d 29 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 19, 1954

Let me tell you definitely you cannot impeach a witness by calling his attention to failing to testify to something on a former occasion unless you first establish he was asked about it. … Although the rulings complained of were clearly erroneous, the charge of prejudicial conduct is not sustained. The deputy district attorney referred to the “perpetrators of this crime” as members of a “rat pack.”

Robinson v. Wilson

44 Cal. App. 3d 92 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 27, 1974

Scarce, whom the court found to be “competent, unbiased and clearly qualified as a polygraph expert.” … He, therefore, had personal knowledge of the circumstances under which the agreement was made and was peculiarly qualified to interpret it.

Firemen's Insurance v. Diskin

255 Cal. App. 2d 502 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 30, 1967

I We think erroneous the ruling that the taxicab operator did not qualify as an uninsured motorist under Insurance Code, section 11580.2, and we follow the decision in Katz v. American Motorist Ins. … The insured may establish in arbitration proceedings his right to legal recovery against an uninsured motorist and the amount of his damages.

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.

Morningred v. Golden State Co.

196 Cal. App. 2d 130 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 6, 1961

Furthermore, the jury’s verdict was based upon the failure of plaintiff to establish any negligence upon the part of the defendants. It was not predicated upon contributory negligence of the parent. … Looking and Not Seeing.) " General human experience justifies the inference that when one looks in the direction of an object clearly visible, he sees it, and that when he listens he hears that which is clearly audible.

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.

Vallejo v. Super. Ct.

California Court of Appeal · Dec 23, 2021

Harris Farms (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 415 because the People had failed to timely raise disqualification or allege facts clearly showing Judge Colin was disqualified to hear the case. … The Smith court reasoned that the tenor of the Candelario decision suggests a final judgment or dispositive order performed in a criminal defendant’s favor is immune from trial court attack. (Smith, at pp. 292–293.)

Georgetown Preservation Society v. County of El Dorado

California Court of Appeal · Dec 17, 2018

In another passage Bowman agreed with the widespread view that “[s]tatements of area residents who are not environmental experts may qualify as substantial evidence if they are based on relevant personal observations or involve … As we have described ante, the evidence clearly shows that the low-threshold fair argument test has been met.

In Re Tanya H.

17 Cal. App. 4th 825 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 3, 1993

The recent necessity for transferring ten panel attorneys ... points to a serious shortage in the availability of qualified, experienced dependency attorneys. … There is no requirement in the statute that a parent establish, by a preponderance of the *832 evidence or otherwise, a continuing need for counsel. The right is unqualified.

White v. Cox Bros. Construction Co.

162 Cal. App. 2d 491 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 1, 1958

Appellant insists that the basis of liability must exist because of section 53051 of the Government Code, and therefore the giving of instructions respecting general negligence was clearly erroneous. … inference and that an inference pointing unerringly to the negligence of the plaintiff contributing to his injury.” ’ (Citing cases.) ” The court also instructed as to the life expectancy of the plaintiff, but omitted the qualifying