Case law

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.)

Weber v. Graner

137 Cal. App. 2d 771 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 14, 1955

The Walker case is clearly inapposite. … That the dichotomy between the two lines of Michigan eases is more apparent than real, and that they rest on the fundamental distinction established in that jurisdiction between the expressions “for residential purposes”

In re Terraza

California Court of Appeal · Jan 12, 2022

(Compare Qawi, supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 14 [right to refuse medical treatment “clearly extends to the right to refuse antipsychotic drugs”] with Love v. … State Dept. of Education (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 980, 993-994 [as to compulsory immunization, right to privacy readily gives way to state’s interest in protecting citizens’ health and safety].)

Nationwide Mutual Ins. v. Shimon

California Court of Appeal · Dec 17, 2015

It is undisputed that Simone qualifies as a family member. … Simone’s use of the GMC was not only a priority, it was clearly exclusive.”

People v. Manor CA3

California Court of Appeal · Aug 20, 2025

The prosecutor also quoted the instruction’s definition of “reward” in arguing that Manor’s payment qualified. … Barnard responded that if she did not “tell the truth and stick to the terms” of the immunity agreement, “then . . . immunity is not granted.” Manor’s counsel then asked: “Who defined the truth?”

Lee v. Board of Administration

130 Cal. App. 3d 122 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 24, 1982

Clearly, it was the Legislature’s intent that the surviving spouse take precedence over the designated beneficiary, leaving to the designated beneficiary only that amount, if any, by which the death benefit exceeded the survivor … We conclude section 21365.5 entitles the surviving spouse to a survivor’s allowance in derogation of whatever expectancy might have been established in the designated beneficiary.

Robinson v. Hewlett-Packard Corp.

183 Cal. App. 3d 1108 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 29, 1986

Under the statutory theory, Robinson failed to establish a prima facie case. … Even if initially “qualified,” Robinson did not remain so. For whatever reason, in the end Robinson plainly was not qualified for the job, and no other suitable situation for him was shown to be available at HP.

Snover v. Gupta

California Court of Appeal · Nov 18, 2025

Rather, it “ ‘quite clearly is simply intended to limit the potential liability of an individual defendant for noneconomic damages to a proportion commensurate with that defendant’s personal share of fault.’ ” (Ibid. … As Gilman put it, “a defendant is not liable for that portion of noneconomic damages attributable to a joint or concurrent tortfeasor, even if the other tortfeasor is insolvent, or is not named as a defendant, or is immune

Gostev v. Skillz Platform

California Court of Appeal · Feb 28, 2023

Alternatively, the parties may bring claims that qualify for its jurisdiction in small claims court. … In short, Skillz has failed to establish the parties clearly and unmistakably delegated threshold issues of arbitrability to the arbitrator.9 8 In Brennan, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held “that incorporation

Mendoza v. Gomes

143 Cal. App. 2d 172 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 16, 1956

The case falls clearly within the rule announced in Krumb v. Campbell, 102 Cal. 370 [ 36 P. 664 ] ; Hagan v. McNary, 170 Cal. 141 [ L.R.A. 1915E 562 , 148 P. 937 ] ; Furman v. … Appellant objected to the question, but only on the ground that the witness was not qualified and not on the ground that the question assumed facts not in evidence.

Doe v. Wilson

57 Cal. App. 4th 296 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 25, 1997

Scope of Review, Jurisdiction, and Related Matters It is well established that we may only review the trial court’s order granting a preliminary injunction for an abuse of discretion. (Butt v. … Notice Register 88, No. 45-Z, p. 3581.) 2 The PRA bars publicly funded routine medical care by states to “an alien who is not— [<]Q (1) a qualified alien” ( 8 U.S.C. § 1621 (a)), and then defines the term “ ‘qualified alien

Bohme v. Southern Pacific Co.

8 Cal. App. 3d 291 · California Court of Appeal · May 28, 1970

Contentions on Appeal Defendant urges that (1) it was prejudicial error for plaintiff’s counsel to interject, on voir dire examination, of prospective jurors, over objection,.the fact that plaintiff did not qualify for workmen … outweighs the value of this evidence, where the evidence was offered for the sole purpose of establishing malingering on the part of plaintiff.

San Diego Unified School District v. County of San Diego

170 Cal. App. 4th 288 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 20, 2009

District’s assertions that the purported failure and refusal of County to comply with its statutory and contractual duties does not qualify as an action to recover damages for ‘latent defects’ are unsupported and a matter … As such, the District has not grounded all of its alleged contractual rights in the manner of construction of the landfill, and section 337.15 does not clearly bar the entirety of this complaint.

Johnston v. Tejunga Rock Co.

25 Cal. App. 84 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 3, 1914

Hogan was president and general manager of the Tejunga Rock Company and owned all of the stock, except a few shares which were distributed among four other persons to qualify them for the office of directors of the corporation … While no definite amount or total price is mentioned in the writing in question, the magnitude of the work as described and the rate per ton that was to be paid clearly establish that the contemplated price was many times

Medical Bd. of Cal. v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal · Jan 8, 2018

The Legislature was apparently concerned that B.W. provided absolute immunity from disciplinary action once diversion had been successfully completed, even if the underlying misconduct could be established through independent … diversion only to the extent that the 8 alleged misconduct at issue could be independently proven without the use of arrest records—must also be rejected because it could clearly

Domingo Villas v. The Ryan Firm CA4/3

California Court of Appeal · Dec 3, 2013

Second is Civil Code section 47, subdivision (c)(1), which sets forth a qualified common interest privilege. … A plaintiff in an anti-SLAPP motion cannot rely on just its pleadings to establish some critical point of a claim. Something more is needed. (E.g., Hailstone v.

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.

Wedgeworth v. City of Newport Beach CA4/3

California Court of Appeal · Mar 13, 2015

While the evidence clearly shows William was at least emotionally disturbed and possibly suffering from a mental illness, this does not mean he was necessarily suicidal or in need of immediate medical or psychological care … And, also like Giraldo, the district court in Lum did not consider the immunity created by section 845.6.

In Re Noday

125 Cal. App. 3d 507 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 10, 1981

Harold *511 Porter to deposit with Reliance Escrow, a company being purchased by defendant Noday, a cashier’s check for $100,000 to be used short term to improve the balance sheet of that company and thus help Noday to qualify … Clearly these allegations, even if true, were cured by the court’s interrogation of defendant Noday as to his waiver on two occasions, set forth above.

Comstock v. Comstock

116 Cal. App. 3d 481 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 4, 1981

It has also clearly indicated that as to either prospective or retroactive enforcement of such obligations, this state ‘has at least as much leeway to disregard the judgment, to qualify it, or to depart from it as does the … Thus it is established that the foreign state support decree may be enforced in California, and the support may be modified to the extent that it would be modifiable in the jurisdiction of the original decree.