Case law

In re I.F.

California Court of Appeal · Jul 31, 2017

As both parties recognize, there is a ― ‗well-established presumption that statutes apply prospectively in the absence of a clearly expressed contrary intent.‘ ‖ (See Californians for Disability Rights v. … permitting juveniles to have their records automatically sealed after successful completion of probation rather than after tobacco sellers to tort liability for acts performed at a time when they enjoyed the protection of an immunity

Rodrigues v. Superior Court

26 Cal. Rptr. 3d 194 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 24, 2005

In addition, at least 24 statutes explicitly qualify “attorney” to require California licensure, implicitly recognizing that without this limitation, the term could extend to persons licensed elsewhere. 9 Courts, too, have … However, whenever a fact may be established by affidavit, a declaration under penalty of perjury may be used “with like force and effect.” (§ 2015.5; see Ancora-Citronelle Corp. v.

Brown v. Nelson

94 Cal. App. 576 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 30, 1928

other living relatives, whose sole possession is $500 in cash, and who is confronted with none of the attachments or situations ordinarily surrounding a man of great wealth, will suffer comparatively little mental strain in qualifying … Being clearly pertinent to the injury, the conclusion is irresistible that they furnish some substantial evidence relating to the testamentary capacity of the testator.

Rufini v. CitiMortgage

California Court of Appeal · Jul 22, 2014

Though the exact basis of Rufini’s contract theory is less than clear, the cure is to allow him to amend his complaint to clearly specify the nature and terms of the agreement he alleges CitiMortgage breached. … Although the complaint does not plainly identify the attempted modification as pursuant to a TPP, it suggests as much in alleging that CitiMortgage refused “to qualify [Rufini] under HAMP.”3 Moreover, Rufini claims in his

Hale Bros. v. Milliken

5 Cal. App. 344 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 3, 1907

Examine plans and wire immediately if everything is clearly shown thereon." The evidence shows that defendants, upon receipt of the last-quoted dispatch, at once obtained from P. C. … Is there to be found any enacted proviso qualifying the provisions of the law as to weights and measures in any particular so that they may be disregarded with impunity? In Rogers v. Mechanics' Ins.

Bertero v. National General Corp.

254 Cal. App. 2d 126 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 6, 1967

These findings clearly and properly determine that the agreement was made with adequate consideration. … Additionally, the employee, in order to qualify for the advantageous capital gains treatment, may not sell the stock within two years of *141 the date on which the option was granted.

People v. Ramos

California Court of Appeal · Jun 23, 2025

Based on this evidence petitioner clearly took a direct step toward killing the victim and acted with specific intent to kill . . . . … That is, there may be some evidence that was admitted at a prior hearing or trial 4 Under section 872 (b), qualified peace officers at preliminary hearings may ordinarily testify as to statements

S.B.C.C., Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance

186 Cal. App. 4th 383 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 11, 2010

The term “protected person” also “means any person or organization,” qualifying under the “Who is Protected” provision of the agreement—that is, the named insured as well as specified individuals and organizations. … (N.D.Cal. 2009) 673 F.Supp.2d 957, 970-971 [defamation and unfair competition claims not clearly within reach of intellectual property exclusion] and KLA-Tencor Corp. v. Travelers Indem.

In Re Krystle D.

30 Cal. App. 4th 1778 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 21, 1994

In the instant case, the evidence established that Brenda suffered from schizophrenia and alcoholism which she attempted to control with medication and counseling. … In it, he stated that "it clearly would not be in Krystal's best interest to be placed in Seward; there are no foster homes [Alaska Native or otherwise] willing to accept this child; existing educational/mental health services

People v. Fogleman CA1/3

California Court of Appeal · Jun 23, 2023

He waived a jury trial to establish his prior offenses and admitted he had two prior felony convictions. … Finally, the evidence established the Altima was valued at over $950. The car was only one year old when the victim purchased it.

Affan v. Portofino Cove Homeowners Assn.

189 Cal. App. 4th 930 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 29, 2010

It does not create a blanket immunity for all the decisions and actions of a homeowners association. … The Association Failed to Establish the Factual Prerequisites for Applying the Judicial Deference Rule At trial, the Association failed to establish the factual prerequisites for applying the rule of judicial deference.

Johnson v. Raytheon Co.

California Court of Appeal · Mar 27, 2019

Even the most cursory review of the facts in this case establishes that Johnson cannot satisfy this test. … Moreover, Johnson cannot establish that ABM could not reasonably have discovered the hazardous condition.

Pimentel v. the Hall-Baker Co.

32 Cal. App. 2d 697 · California Court of Appeal · May 18, 1939

Thus we find the following rules established by decisions in California: (1) Where, as is usual, the obligations of an oil lease are not mutual and reciprocal and there is no mutuality of remedies, an action for specific … It clearly appears that the lease could not have been specifically enforced because of lack of mutuality of remedies. *706 In California Trust Co. v.

People v. Cully

236 Cal. App. 2d 769 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 24, 1965

The action of defendant in trying to pry the door open with a screwdriver which he later threw at one of the officers clearly establishes the corpus delicti of attempted burglary. (See People v. … The record clearly establishes that defendant was arrested by a police officer in the course of an investigation immediately following an attempted burglary in which defendant, as the perpetrator thereof, was wounded by a

People v. Butler

43 Cal. App. 4th 1224 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 26, 1996

Ochoa (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1199, 1206 [ 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 23 , 864 P.2d 103 ]), the evidence established that on November 16, 1994, defendant was in Inglewood in the vicinity of a laundromat when he became engaged in an argument … testimony and argument offered at the hearing, there appears to be little doubt that a ‘cloned’ cellular phone—one with an ESN and MIN identical to another existing but legitimate unit—would represent an ‘access device” clearly

The People v. Super. Ct.

215 Cal. App. 4th 1279 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 30, 2013

As such, his conviction would have qualified him for a second strike sentence only. … The reference to “the trial court that entered the judgment” is clearly a reference to the trial judge.

People v. Arceo

195 Cal. App. 4th 556 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 13, 2011

admissible as a statement by Mejorado in furtherance of a conspiracy. 15 Hearsay statements by coconspirators may be admitted against a party if independent proof of a conspiracy has been shown, and three preliminary facts are established … Court’s recent clarification of the scope of the Confrontation Clause also eliminates any need to analyze the admissibility of the tape-recording [made by a prison inmate of a conversation with a codefendant] under the rule established

Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Oracle Corp.

239 Cal. App. 4th 1174 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 27, 2015

Oracle’s Claim of an Excuse for Delayed Filing Does Not Establish an Abuse of Discretion A. … These remarks clearly presaged HP’s contention that the promise to appeal was a factor contributing to HP’s injuries.

Lopez v. University Partners

54 Cal. App. 4th 1117 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 9, 1997

does not explain, nor can we think of any reason why, under the reasoning of Privette , a lessor in possession of real property who hires an independent contractor to perform inherently dangerous work should be any less immune … It is unclear why Lopez cited Labor Code section 6304, as its present definition of employer clearly excludes JWP and University.

A-Mark Coin Co. v. General Mills, Inc.

148 Cal. App. 3d 312 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 25, 1983

Its power to act as it did is established and, in our view, beyond question.” … In addition, respondents’ actions clearly came within the privilege of competition.