Case law

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.

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.

Tash v. Devoir Oblige Capital Group CA2/3

California Court of Appeal · Jun 20, 2024

“It is well established that in the context of a demurrer, specific allegations control over more general ones.” (Chen v. PayPal, Inc. (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 559, 571, citing Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. … (See Schep, supra, 12 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1337–1338 [demurrer properly sustained based on section 47 qualified 12 immunity where allegations suggested reasonable basis for successor trustees

People v. Rameses CA3

California Court of Appeal · Sep 15, 2016

murder convictions in Florida would qualify as strikes under California law. … To qualify as a serious felony, a conviction from another jurisdiction must involve conduct that would qualify as a serious felony under California law.

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.

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.

Lebrilla v. Farmers Group, Inc.

16 Cal. Rptr. 3d 25 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 19, 2004

However, we are certain that, at this time, it is not our role, nor the trial court’s job, to involve ourselves with the merits of the underlying action or which parties’ experts are most qualified. … Clearly, the Legislature and insurance companies are aware that not all inferior non-OEM parts have been eliminated.

Veera v. Banana Republic, LLC

6 Cal. App. 5th 907 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 15, 2016

Thus, in order to establish standing under the UCL and the FAL, a private party must “(1) establish a loss or deprivation of money or property sufficient to qualify as injury in fact, i.e., economic injury, and (2) show that … Staples, Inc. (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 466 [despite order form that may have been ambiguous as to whether customers would be charged certain surcharge, form was not misleading because customers were clearly informed of actual

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

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.

People v. Davis

85 Cal. App. 3d 916 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 26, 1978

Finally, only in the present opinion have we clearly indicated the propriety of raising and resolving the issue by a nonstatutory motion to dismiss. … Defense counsel objected to the seizure of defendant’s personal papers on the ground that it was immune under the attorney’s work-product privilege. The trial court rejected this argument.

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.

Manela v. Stone

California Court of Appeal · Jul 1, 2021

Stone is listed as the “qualifying individual” on the reissued license. (See § 7068, subd. … Generally speaking, “[t]he statutes in this state clearly manifest a policy in favor of the free transferability of all types of property, including rights under contracts” (Farmland Irrigation Co. v.

People v. Alcala CA4/3

California Court of Appeal · Sep 18, 2020

By its clear language, the statute limits relief only to qualifying persons who were convicted of murder. “Manslaughter, while a lesser included offense of murder, is clearly a separate offense . . . . ” (People v. … relief only to qualifying persons who were convicted of murder.

Cucamonga County Water District v. Southwest Water Co.

22 Cal. App. 3d 245 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 21, 1971

The District correctly points out that by section 813 of the Evidence Code the value of property may be shown only by the opinions of a qualified expert or the owner. … The first such objection is that Stetson was not qualified to express an opinion of value relating to the reservoir site.

Santa Cruz Oil Corp. v. Milnor

55 Cal. App. 2d 56 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 19, 1942

Appellants next urge that the Legislature has attempted to enact extraterritorial legislation; that the act constitutes an unlawful interference with interstate commerce; that it violates the privileges and immunities, equal … To inflict a forfeiture of a vessel on account of the misconduct of those on board,—treating the thing as liable to forfeiture, because the instrument of the offense is within established principles of legislation, which

Lappe v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County

232 Cal. App. 4th 774 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 19, 2014

As construed by the federal courts, Rojas explains, rule 408 “ ‘prevent[s] one from being able to “immunize from admissibility documents otherwise discoverable merely by offering them in a compromise negotiation.” … But a law established for a public reason cannot be contravened by a private agreement.” (See also Civ. Code, § 1668.) So it is here.

Dornell v. Retirement Board

72 Cal. App. 2d 197 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 13, 1945

Respondent further argues that Dr. du Bray’s testimony did not create a conflict; that he qualified some of his statements and conclusions by such expressions as “It is possible,” “this is another guess,” “can’t say with … No. ’ ’ In our opinion, the instant case is clearly distinguishable from the Brant case.

United Neighborhoods for L.A. v. City of L.A.

California Court of Appeal · Jul 25, 2023

“In interpreting CEQA, we accord the Guidelines great weight except where they are clearly unauthorized or erroneous.” (Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. … The report stated that, “[a]s the proposed project qualifies for the [in-fill exemption] it is exempt from CEQA.

Mason v. Superior Court

242 Cal. App. 4th 773 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 30, 2015

Having done so, and with his expert knowledge of the type of firework involved, he was qualified to aver on the cause of the fire. … Sufficient evidence to support the indictment is sufficient evidence to establish probable cause.