Case law

Houghtaling v. SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN BERNARDINO CTY.

17 Cal. App. 4th 1128 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 11, 1993

If stronger evidence is clearly available, the trial court may draw the inference offered by Evidence Code section 412, and view the proffered evidence with distrust. … As proceedings are rarely, if ever, reported, there is little point in establishing detailed rules where errors would generally escape discovery and correction.

Weaver v. Superior Court

95 Cal. App. 3d 166 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 27, 1979

Rainey's findings noted above were correct but attempted to qualify that concession by stating that "[t]he pathology report showed `calcified villi' which means that the patient had at some time previously been pregnant and … , then, a defense verdict or a dismissal on the merits equates with a favorable termination and thus establishes the first element of a malicious prosecution case.

WATSONVILLE PILOTS ASSN. v. City of Watsonville

183 Cal. App. 4th 1059 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 15, 2010

To qualify as a low-activity runway under the 2002 Handbook, a runway must be less than 4,000 feet long and have fewer than 2,000 takeoffs and landings on a runway end. … The City’s 2005 alterations of the 2003 WAMP were clearly designed to permit the City to designate Runway 8 as a low-activity runway.

Velez v. Smith

48 Cal. Rptr. 3d 642 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 12, 2006

Respondent also acted to terminate the domestic relationship in accordance with the terms stated in section 299.3, which clearly evinces a legislative intent to afford domestic partners the opportunity to avoid changes in … Appellant does not qualify as a former registered domestic partner within the meaning of section 297.5, subdivision (b). C. Appellant’s Rights As a Putative Domestic Partner.

Wilkinson v. Madera Community Hospital

144 Cal. App. 3d 436 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 28, 1983

The statutory requirement clearly confers no power on the producer that he would not have possessed without it. “. . . … has claims or judgments against him. 8 42 United States Code section 1395a provides: “Any individual entitled to insurance benefits under this subchapter may obtain health services from any institution, agency, or person qualified

People v. Slusher CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · Oct 22, 2024

citizens of each state all the privileges and immunities of citizens in any other state. … Rather, the high court has “long held that the Privileges and Immunities Clause protects only those privileges and immunities that are ‘fundamental.’ ” (Ibid.)

Metabyte v. Technicolor S.A.

California Court of Appeal · Aug 9, 2023

DISCUSSION “We review the trial court’s ruling that sustained the demurrer to each cause of action of the pleading in accordance with established standards. … This is, in effect, an argument that only the pursuit of such a remedy can qualify for equitable tolling.

Brinton v. Bankers Pension Services, Inc.

76 Cal. App. 4th 550 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 24, 1999

Facts Plaintiff established a self-directed individual retirement account with defendant. At the time, Ronald P. … Contrary to plaintiff’s assertion, the record clearly establishes his NASD claim and the present lawsuit sought recovery for the same injury.

Mission Hospital Regional Medical Center v. Shewry

168 Cal. App. 4th 460 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 19, 2008

To qualify for federal assistance, a state must submit to the secretary of the federal Department of Health and Human Services (Secretary) for approval a “plan for medical assistance” (42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)) that contains … “While section 1983 of 42 United States Code requires violation of a private right, privilege, or immunity to confer standing, section 1085 of the California Code of Civil Procedure creates a broad right to issuance of a

Thomas v. Buttress & McClellan, Inc.

141 Cal. App. 2d 812 · California Court of Appeal · May 24, 1956

A joint bank account was established by Convair and defendant, the funds therein deposited were furnished by the government, and costs of labor and materials were paid out of that account upon the joint signatures of Convair … Clearly there was no sale here. “ A sale is a contract by which, for a pecuniary consideration, called a price, one transfers to another an interest in property. . . . ‘Sale is a word of precise legal import. ...

Austero v. National Casualty Co. of Detroit

84 Cal. App. 3d 1 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 18, 1978

Plainly stated, accepting that plaintiff has established a breach of contract based upon the Company’s failure to pay benefits for his disability, such benefits are only computable to the date of the judgment. … Clearly, both logic and good policy dictate that no such rule ever be applied in first party cases.

Orange County Social Services Agency v. Lorenzo M.

235 Cal. App. 3d 403 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 18, 1991

In enacting the legislation Congress declared that “it is the policy of this Nation to protect the best interests of Indian children and to promote the stability and security of Indian tribes and families by the establishment … When cultural bias is clearly not indicated, the expert need not possess special knowledge of Indian life. {State ex rel. Juvenile Dept, of Lane County v. Tucker (1985) 76 Ore.App. 673 [ 710 P.2d 793 ].)

Estate of Tischler

20 Cal. App. 3d 137 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 20, 1971

Since nonresidents cannot qualify as administrators, the public administrator is the proper person. (Prob. Code, §§ 420, 422, subd. (8); Estate of Beech (1883) 63 Cal. 458 .) … Bank (1949) 33 Cal.2d 599, 603 [ 203 P.2d 752 ], we conclude that the claimant and appellant has established his right to the fund. That conclusion is consistent with the purpose of Probate Code section 1026.

People v. Keating

185 Cal. App. 4th 364 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 7, 2010

The charges all stem from various transactions relating to a business that appellant and his partner, James Anderson, established in 2007. Appellant claims that his convictions were not supported by sufficient evidence. … In any case, as we have addressed elsewhere the authority on which the Rodriguez court primarily relied— Stinnette —is clearly inapt.

Nelson v. United Technologies

88 Cal. Rptr. 2d 239 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 22, 1999

The evidence, however, clearly proves that plaintiff’s conduct did not constitute time card fraud which was the employer’s stated reason for terminating [Nelson].” … Based upon these provisions, it is clear that Nelson’s circumstances qualified him for leave pursuant to the CFRA. UTC does not claim otherwise. B.

Bank of America v. County of Fresno

127 Cal. App. 3d 295 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 30, 1981

The Evidence The respondents are duly qualified, appointed and acting co-executors of the will of William H. Noble, deceased. … Property receiving the homeowners’ exemption shall be clearly identified on the assessment roll.

State Compensation Insurance Fund v. State Board of Equalization

14 Cal. App. 4th 1295 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 9, 1993

We observe, however, that Revenue and Taxation Code section 12202.1 clearly meets the standards for a proper delegation of legislative power. … To the extent that it would qualify by implication an expressly granted power, it falls afoul of the principle that “ ‘the law shuns repeals by implication. . . .”’

People v. Hunter

California Court of Appeal · Sep 11, 2017

Clearly, these statements would reveal nothing significant about the attorney’s impressions, conclusions, or opinions about the case.’ … To the contrary, by statute, “[a]ll other work product receives qualified protection” (Coito, supra, 54 Cal.4th at p. 485), under which the “party seeking disclosure has the burden of establishing that denial of disclosure

People v. Hester

California Court of Appeal · Dec 14, 2020

The testimony received at trial established the following material facts. … The court held a baseball bat qualified as a “billy”—at least a bat that was small and altered to serve as a weapon. (Id. at p. 621.)

People v. Ledesma

California Court of Appeal · Aug 23, 2017

Statutes must be upheld unless their unconstitutionality clearly, positively and unmistakably appears.' " (People v. Garcia (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 763, 768; see also People v. Fuiava (2012) 53 Cal.4th 622, 696.) … That Court of Appeal opinions both affirm and reverse convictions based on the asportation requirement in these statutes is not, as Ledesma advances, evidence that a principled and objective standard has not been established