Case law

Cohen v. Five Brooks Stable

72 Cal. Rptr. 3d 471 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 14, 2008

The dissent does precisely the opposite; instead of asking whether respondent has established, as a matter of undisputed fact, “either that one or more elements of the cause of action cannot be established or that there is … If such conduct was considered an integral part of the activity, a stable operator would be immune from liability if its trail guide suddenly whipped or threw a lit firecracker under the horse of an unsuspecting rider.

People v. Ortiz

California Court of Appeal · Jan 26, 2023

(See § 1385(c)(1)-(2); see also Carmony, supra, 33 Cal.4th at pp. 376-377 [the party attacking the judgment must clearly show that the decision was irrational or arbitrary].) … Had the Legislature intended to establish a rebuttable presumption as Ortiz posits, it could have approved the language of the earlier version of the bill. We are unable to ignore the fact that it did not.

Moore v. Regents of the University of California

248 Cal. App. 4th 216 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 2, 2016

This step is designed to eliminate at the outset the most patently meritless claims, as where the plaintiff is not a member of the protected class or was clearly unqualified, or where the job he sought was withdrawn and … Moore contends that she requested leave for a CFRA-qualified reason—i.e., heart surgery—and that instead of notifying Moore of her right to take CFRA-qualified leave 40 and

DISABLED & BLIND ACTION COMMITTEE OF CAL v. Jenkins

44 Cal. App. 3d 74 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 26, 1974

In their place a single program was established under title XVI of H.R.-1 ( 42 U.S.C. §§ 1381-1385 ). … Very clearly under section 12200, the income of either spouse is considered if both are eligible.

People v. Alexander

California Court of Appeal · Jun 25, 2019

protection claim, reasoning that “a violent felon confined in a local detention facility prior to sentencing is not similarly situated for equal protection purposes to one serving a term in state prison and enrolled in a qualifying … Moreover, even if a law applies retroactively, it does not follow that a person using that law to challenge a stipulated sentence is immune from having to obtain a certificate of probable cause.

Yamada Brothers v. AGRICULTURAL LABOR REL. BD.

99 Cal. App. 3d 112 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 28, 1979

Clearly section 1155.2 does. … Such a qualified "affirmation" does not fulfill the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 2015.5 for a declaration made under penalty of perjury.

People v. Kinsley

118 Cal. App. 593 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 25, 1931

Longino, was clearly not an accomplice. She was the purchaser. She did not sell, give away, furnish, etc. … The corpus delicti was conclusively established when appellant himself took the witness-stand in his defense. (People v. Kelley, 70 Cal. App. 519 , at page 523 [ 234 Pac. 110 ].)

Shaw v. County of Santa Cruz

170 Cal. App. 4th 229 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 19, 2008

The Shaws also argued that the evidence was admissible to show that the individual defendants were not immune from liability as they should have known that “the conduct complained of violated statutory or constitutional rights … Indeed, the memorandum decision could not reflect a prior, dispositive ruling on the due process claims because the record clearly shows that the court had not made such a ruling.

City of Los Angeles v. Los Olivos Mobile Home Park

213 Cal. App. 3d 1427 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 18, 1989

The City sought a declaration that the Park was subject to the RSO and did not qualify for any exemption because the RSO only exempts mobilehome parks where a permit to operate was first issued on or after February 10, 1986 … The 1986 amendment established an exemption for new mobilehome parks, as contrasted with individual mobilehomes.

People Ex Rel. Lockyer v. Pacific Gaming Technologies

98 Cal. Rptr. 2d 400 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 27, 2000

These were the facts in Trinkle : John Trinkle and others owned vending and amusement machines, including “Match 5 Jukeboxes” that they rented to business establishments. … With or without those features, the VendaTel meets the statutory definition of an illegal slot machine (§§ 330b, 330.1) and fails to qualify for the exemption (§ 330.5).

Scarborough v. City of Lancaster CA2/2

California Court of Appeal · Oct 1, 2024

It argued that (1) plaintiffs could not establish that a dangerous condition existed at the location of the accident; and (2) it was immune from liability pursuant to Government Code sections 830.4 and 830.8. … They further argued that the City was not immune from liability. In support, plaintiffs offered an expert declaration from Brad P.

People v. Khan CA6

California Court of Appeal · May 5, 2025

“Once eligibility is established, a trial court ‘must consider whether the defendant is suitable for pretrial diversion.’ (§ 1001.36, subd. (c).) … ) “ ‘It is appellant’s burden on appeal to establish an abuse of discretion and prejudice.’ ” (People v. Pacheco (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 207, 213.) C.

Bell v. Mason

194 Cal. App. 4th 1102 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 28, 2011

To establish her mental incapacity, Bell presented the expert testimony of Dr. Catherine Scarf, a practicing psychologist. … Therefore, Black established a solid foundation for his testimony. The trial court’s exclusion of Black’s expert opinion that Bell has normal intelligence was clearly erroneous. 13 c.

Doe v. Coronado Unified School District CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · Jan 2, 2026

“A person is qualified to testify as an expert if he has special knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education sufficient to qualify him as an expert on the subject to which his testimony relates.” (Evid. … Grant clearly lacks qualification as an expert (Chavez, supra, 39 Cal.3d at p. 828), we find no abuse of discretion. F.

People v. Lai

42 Cal. Rptr. 3d 444 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 26, 2006

To establish abuse, the defendant must show that, under the circumstances, the denial of probation was arbitrary or capricious. (People v. … The California Supreme Court has held: “ ‘The burden is on the party attacking the sentence to clearly show that the sentencing decision was irrational or arbitrary. [Citation.]

Wilson v. John Crane, Inc.

97 Cal. Rptr. 2d 240 · California Court of Appeal · May 18, 2000

The primary weakness in this argument is its reliance on a simplistic literalism blind to established usage. *853 Before addressing that weakness, however, we acknowledge some basis to question, or at least qualify, plaintiff … Like Hodges , that case turned on the intended scope of language (“culpable conduct”) with no clear established meaning.

Clover Valley Foundation v. City of Rocklin

197 Cal. App. 4th 200 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 8, 2011

Monitoring of construction would be conducted by a qualified biologist and reported to the appropriate agency. … This evidence establishes a virtual certainty the water will be available, far more than CEQA requires.

People v. Murillo CA6

California Court of Appeal · Dec 5, 2025

Y.D. testified under an immunity agreement with the prosecution. … from 2024 concerning presidential immunity.

India Paint and Lacquer Co. v. United Steel Prod. Corp.

123 Cal. App. 2d 597 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 2, 1954

Harlan was “not qualified” to express an opinion that its compounds here in question were “liable to stick” when used in United’s process. Mr. … There was clearly no abuse of discretion in permitting Mr.

Evraets v. Intermedics Intraocular, Inc.

29 Cal. App. 4th 779 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 26, 1994

Clearly, the purpose of Congress in the area of investigational medical devices was to encourage a high degree of experimentation. … A violation of federal laws and regulations establishing a standard of conduct may provide the basis for a state law claim. (Toole v.