Case law

People v. McMillan

45 Cal. App. Supp. 2d 821 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 11, 1941

matter how moderate in degree, and expressly prohibited them; and then to prevent the ingenuity of guards and others from devising equally undesirable substitutes and yet to permit punishment in some form it inserted the qualified … more offenses than were charged, the giving of it, without an instruction clearly informing the jury that they must all agree on the same act as the basis of any verdict, was error.

Frederick v. Calbio Pharmaceuticals

89 Cal. App. 3d 49 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 31, 1979

The situation clearly came within the scope of the circumstances under which “blameless ignorance” may operate to toll the statute of limitations, as described by this court in Warrington v. … Superior Court (1975) 49 Cal.App.3d 22, 25 [ 122 Cal.Rptr. 218 ].) 2 Defendant does not qualify as a “health care provider” as that term is defined in Code - f Civil Procedure section 340.5 which governs both personal injury

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

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.

Irvin v. Contra Costa County Employees' Retirement Assn.

California Court of Appeal · Jun 30, 2017

Probate Code section 5042 establishes a similar rule with respect to joint tenancies established by a couple before or during a marriage. … This is particularly true in counties that have adopted the generous provisions of section 31760.2, which merely require a two-year marriage to qualify a subsequent spouse.

Cristler v. Express Messenger Systems, Inc.

171 Cal. App. 4th 72 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 23, 2009

The proposed modification was intended to allow drivers who otherwise would qualify for inclusion in the class, but for the fact that they employed their own employees or subcontractors, to qualify for class membership for … Thus, the instructions in their entirety were sufficiently clear in establishing that Express Messenger bore the burden of establishing Cristler’s independent contractor status, and that the class members — if otherwise falling

Truck Insurance Exchange v. Torres

193 Cal. App. 2d 483 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 29, 1961

Clearly that is not the situation presented at bar and the rule there announced and applied is not controlling upon the facts before us. … Federal claims that this immunized it from any obligation to protect its insured with respect to the negligence action and judgment, but it did not plead any such defense.

Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Belshe

54 Cal. App. 4th 1547 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 22, 1997

. §§ 1396 -1396v), through which the federal government provides financial assistance to states so that they may furnish medical care to qualified indigent persons. [Citation.] … While Kaiser contends no review at all occurs, that is clearly not the case.

Giacalone v. Industrial Accident Commission

120 Cal. App. 2d 727 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 20, 1953

The employer, unless he qualifies as a self-insurer, is required to have compensation insurance. He is not compelled to, and may not have, liability coverage. … The rule is not altered because a plaintiff believes that he can establish negligence on the part of his employer and brings a civil suit for damages.

People v. Spring Valley Co.

109 Cal. App. 2d 656 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 12, 1952

In 1934, on the last date of tabulation prior to Judge Trabuceo’s decision, the qualified electors of San Mateo County were 46,853. … What the judge’s reasons for keeping out of the case are does not appear, but whatever they are, they do not establish that a fair trial cannot reasonably be had in the county.

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.

Rich v. State Board of Optometry

235 Cal. App. 2d 591 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 7, 1965

a uniform system of regulation whereby through the process of natural attrition those qualified for the exemption would gradually diminish in number until no more existed. … To the contrary, the licensee’s business investment will be in most eases, and clearly is in the instant eases, vitally alive.

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.

Rodriguez v. WNT, Inc.

California Court of Appeal · Dec 4, 2025

Rodriguez Otherwise Failed to Meet his Burden of Establishing Entitlement to Mandatory Relief For several reasons, we nevertheless conclude that Rodriguez failed to meet his burden of establishing entitlement … “Substantial justification means clearly reasonable justification that is well grounded in both law and fact.” (Ibid.) “The losing party has the burden of proving substantial justification on appeal.” (Ibid.)

Grabowski v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc.

California Court of Appeal · May 10, 2021

In the context of judicial recusal, ‘[p]otential bias and prejudice must clearly be established by an objective standard.’ ” (Haworth, supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 389.) “ ‘An impression of possible bias in the arbitration context … The exact reason for the laughter is somewhat unclear, but it was clearly improper.

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.)

Pieri v. City & County of San Francisco

137 Cal. App. 4th 905 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 21, 2006

It is true that “it should not be presumed that the legislative body intends to overthrow long-established principles of law unless such intention is made clearly to appear either by express declaration or by necessary implication … However, even if the court’s construction in Channing Properties of former section 7060.1, subdivision (c) qualified as a “long-established principien of law,” we would disagree with Fieri’s conclusion.

People v. Grant

52 Cal. App. 2d 794 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 23, 1942

Such actions (in cases where the penalty is to the state) clearly are governed by the limitation period prescribed in subdivision 2 of section 340 of the Code of Civil Procedure, applying to ‘‘An action upon a statute . . … Defendant does not rely on any gambling enterprise to establish his ownership or right of possession.

In re Haden

California Court of Appeal · Jun 5, 2020

The records in Haden’s North Dakota plea proceedings establish that Haden indeed made relevant admissions. … (Berger, at p. 315.) 6  The rules in Roberts and Berger thus remedied a situation where a defendant clearly lacked any ability to confront a witness at trial.

Early v. Bacerra

California Court of Appeal · Feb 8, 2021

The award in this case qualifies. This case resulted in (1) our published opinion (2) interpreting a statute setting forth the requirements for the office of Attorney General. In Early v. … The rule . . . is that, absent facts rendering the award unjust, parties who qualify for a fee should recover for all hours reasonably spent, including those on fee-related matters.”