Case law

People v. House

12 Cal. App. 3d 756 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 6, 1970

I realize, of course, that the number of witnesses who would make themselves available for the sole reason that section 352 qualifies section 788 is small indeed; but such a rule might go far in giving the witness stand a … Circuit which in Luck, established a nonstatutory discretion to exclude prior felony impeachment, in spite of a statute (14 D.C. Code § 305 ), permitting it.

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.

People v. Cornejo

California Court of Appeal · Jan 20, 2016

“California law permits a person with ‘special knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education’ in a particular field to qualify as an expert witness (Evid. … Additional Background Detective Jason Kirtlan interviewed Neal in the presence of Neal’s attorney, who had secured an immunity agreement for Neal prior to the interview.

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.

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

Moran v. Prime Healthcare

California Court of Appeal · Oct 5, 2016

To forestall an action under the unfair competition law, another provision must actually ‘bar’ the action or clearly permit the conduct. … “To satisfy the narrower standing requirements imposed by [the enactment of Business and Professions Code section 17204], a party must now (1) establish a loss or deprivation of money or property sufficient to qualify as

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.

Apollo Estates, Inc. v. Department of Real Estate

174 Cal. App. 3d 625 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 19, 1985

“By labeling the position probationary, the Legislature had clearly advised the employee that the position is neither vested nor permanent. … This was clearly a breach of his fiduciary obligation to the Vessels.

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.

People v. Aparicio

California Court of Appeal · Jan 9, 2015

Mickey (1991) 54 Cal.3d 612, 649 [questions of fact subject to review for substantial evidence is equivalent to federal "clearly erroneous" scrutiny].) … Aparicio argues that he qualifies for resentencing under section 1170.18 and the definition of "unreasonable risk of danger to public safety" contained in Proposition 47 governs the identical section 1170.126 standard.

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

Chirmside v. Board of Administration

143 Cal. App. 3d 205 · California Court of Appeal · May 20, 1983

The administrative law judge and the trial court both felt constrained to so hold by the “terminable interest doctrine” established in Benson v. … These cases established the “rule” that the community interest in a pension terminates upon the death of either spouse.

Hernandez v. Atlantic Finance Co. of Los Angeles

105 Cal. App. 3d 65 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 24, 1980

A buyer with low income and a very small down payment is unlikely to qualify for a conditional sales contract, and that buyer will be issued credit, if at all, only on a personal loan secured by property in addition to the … Because we have concluded that the evidence clearly establishes a violation of the Rees-Levering Act and the right to injunction, we need not reach the issue of the propriety of the court’s findings, and we do not do so.

In Re EH

133 Cal. Rptr. 2d 740 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 28, 2003

E. qualified as a "medically fragile child" because she had been diagnosed with closed lip schizencephaly, which could cause seizures, paralysis, developmental delay, and hydrocephalus. … The Department argues the evidence clearly established that the mother and father were E.'s caretakers and she was with one or the other of them at all times.

ITT Telecom Products Corp. v. Dooley

214 Cal. App. 3d 307 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 26, 1989

Third, disregarding disputed facts, we consider whether the motion has “established] a complete defense or otherwise show[n] there is no factual basis for relief on any theory reasonably contemplated by the opponent’s pleading … We conclude that statements by Dooley as a consultant to assist a potential litigant qualify for the statutory privilege. 7. Does the privilege apply to statements violating a contract of confidentiality?

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.

People v. Smith

135 Cal. App. 4th 914 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 27, 2005

Taffolla’s statements qualified as spontaneous statements. … Rodrigues (1994) 8 Cal.4th 1060, 1133 [ 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 235 , 885 P.2d 1 ] [statement “not made to law enforcement officials in the hope of leniency or immunity” does not require accomplice instruction]; see also People v.

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.

Muzquiz v. City of Emeryville

94 Cal. Rptr. 2d 579 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 14, 2000

This burden-shifting system requires the employee first to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination. … As discussed, the trial court’s statement of decision clearly addressed the ultimate issue in this case: whether appellant had borne her burden of proving that the City’s stated reasons for eliminating her position were pretextual