Case law

Sandlin v. McLaughlin

California Court of Appeal · Jun 17, 2020

“The Legislature clearly knows how to create an exemption from the anti-SLAPP statute when it wishes to do so.” (Jarrow Formulas, Inc. v. LaMarche (2003) 31 Cal.4th 728, 735.) … To start, it is not clear Petitioner’s writ petition challenging Real Parties’ candidate statements as false or misleading qualifies as an “action brought solely in the public interest or on behalf of the general public”

Fairfax v. Lords

41 Cal. Rptr. 3d 850 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 18, 2006

Parties presumably designate the expert they believe best qualified to opine on the applicable standard of care; if Lords believed there was a significant difference between a medical expert and a podiatric expert for purposes … Although Lords contends her opinion was entirely undermined during cross-examination, the record clearly suggests the jury did not see it that way. After having heard both her testimony and that of Dr.

Taylor v. Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Labor Standards Enforcement

4 Cal. App. 5th 801 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 26, 2016

A prejudicial abuse of discretion is established if the agency has not proceeded in a manner required by law . . . .” (San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. … Thus, the moving party must establish that the challenged legislation inevitably is in total, fatal conflict with applicable prohibitions.” (Sierra Club v.

Douglas E. Barnhart, Inc. v. CMC Fabricators, Inc.

211 Cal. App. 4th 230 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 20, 2012

The California appellate cases thus clearly indicate that a promissory estoppel claim is based on equitable principles, not on a contract. … Because the promises there involved were clearly contractual, Sachs does not support Barnhart’s contention that the promise underlying its promissory estoppel claim was contractual.

People v. Roehler

167 Cal. App. 3d 353 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 25, 1985

, usually by expert testimony, and (2) the witness furnishing such testimony must be properly qualified as an expert to give an opinion on the subject. … Presence of motive may tend to establish guilt. Absence of motive may tend to establish innocence. You will therefore give its presence or absence, as the case may be, the weight to which you find it to be entitled.”

People v. Terwilligar

California Court of Appeal · Mar 10, 2025

A defendant does not qualify for this ameliorative change” under various “disqualifying” circumstances that “must be pleaded and proved by the prosecution.” … If the petitioner would have qualified for a shorter sentence under the Reform Act version of the law, taking into consideration the disqualifying factors (§ 1170.126, subds.

O'Neal v. Stanislaus County Employees' Retirement Assn.

8 Cal. App. 5th 1184 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 23, 2017

Thus, a member‟s interest as an employee is clearly related to his interest as a pension beneficiary.” (Ibid.) We agree with that analysis. … The goal of trial court gatekeeping is simply to exclude „clearly invalid and unreliable‟ expert opinion. [Citation.]

Taylor v. Board of Education

31 Cal. App. 2d 734 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 28, 1939

Ed. 57 ], an act of the Illinois legislature in 1917 established teacher tenure in the Chicago schools following a three-year probationary period. … It is also equally well established that the intention of the Legislature thus to create contractual obligations, resulting in ex-tinguishment to a certain extent of governmental powers, must clearly and unmistakably appear

People v. Avellaneda CA4/3

California Court of Appeal · Dec 15, 2025

The process begins when a defendant previously convicted of a qualifying offense files a petition pursuant to section 1172.6. … Since the record of conviction established Avellaneda was not convicted under a vicarious liability theory, relief was properly denied by the court.

Thorburn v. Department of Corrections

78 Cal. Rptr. 2d 584 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 29, 1998

That is, appellants contend that physician participation in executions “breaches the rules or ethical code of a profession,” and that any such ethical violation qualifies as “unprofessional conduct” under section 2234. … date has been established, to “select and appoint three alienists . . . from the medical staffs of the Department of Corrections ... to examine the defendant, under the judgment of death, and investigate his or her sanity

Jackson v. Super. Ct.

California Court of Appeal · Feb 28, 2025

And although this clearly is an arduous task, it is not impossible. However, this type of inquiry requires a case by case approach based on the unique evidence offered. … We note that the data provided by Jackson clearly shows a stark disparity in the treatment of Black people pulled over by the SDPD compared to white people.

San Diego County Health & Human Services Agency v. M.J.

243 Cal. App. 4th 41 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 4, 2015

Because use immunity applies to his "course of treatment ordered as part of the reunification plan" (In re Lamonica H., supra, 220 Cal.App.3d at p. 650), the immunity would apply to the identified case objectives as well … the minor is a person described by Section 300, the court may limit the control to be exercised over the dependent child by any 22 parent or guardian and shall by its order clearly

Barton v. Owen

71 Cal. App. 3d 484 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 1, 1977

In much the same way that laymen are not qualified to judge whether a doctor has been negligent because of their lack of common knowledge on the subject, they also are not qualified from a medical standpoint to determine … Clearly, this might have been the result of the plaintiff’s intended voir dire question.

People v. Kline

110 Cal. App. 3d 587 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 12, 1980

The facts can be summarized as follows: In mid-1977 appellant formulated plans to establish a fast food chain which would sell hot dogs from portable kiosks under the name “Aunt Hilda’s Pennsylvania Dutch Steamed Franks.” … That section provides that “It is unlawful for any person to offer or sell in this state any security...unless such sale has been qualified.. .or... exempted.”

People v. Cervantes

233 Cal. App. 3d 323 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 12, 1991

Once a prima facie case of discrimination has been established, the burden shifts to the opposing party to demonstrate that prospective jurors were not peremptorily challenged on the sole basis of group bias. … The equal protection clause prohibits a prosecutor from using the state’s peremptory challenges to exclude otherwise qualified and unbiased persons from the petit jury solely by reason of their race, a practice that forecloses

Oldcastle Precast, Inc. v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co.

170 Cal. App. 4th 554 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 23, 2009

‘[P]rmciples 0f sovereign immunity do not permit liens for persons furnishing labor or supplies on public property . . . .’ [Citation.] … In addition to reiterating the undisputed material facts established to support summary judgment on the payment bond against Lumbermens, plaintiff also produced evidence establishing that (1) after Intra-American failed to

City of Los Angeles v. Waller

90 Cal. App. 3d 766 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 21, 1979

The appraisal was not arrived at through application of scientific method, but was presumably the best educated opinion that a duly qualified expert could provide. … We hold that Code of Civil Procedure section 1036 clearly applies. Plaintiff city’s appeals are without merit. The judgment and orders are affirmed. Files, P. J., and Kingsley, J., concurred.

Gallagher v. Leefers

127 Cal. App. 2d 550 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 27, 1954

In direct contradiction to this evidence there were certain qualifying laws and enactments or decrees received in evidence, extracts from certain textbooks and commentaries, as well as expert opinions to the effect that these … In Estate of Schluttig, 36 Cal.2d 416, 425 [ 224 P.2d 695 ], it was said: “Clearly, when it is shown that the taking of estates by testamentary disposition or succession is a matter of sufferance determinable in accordance

Schiernbeck v. Haight

7 Cal. App. 4th 869 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 24, 1992

Clearly the foregoing statement is insufficient to inform the jury how to convert a gross value into a present value amount. C. … This hypothetical clearly shows that the $24,500 paid annually hardly compensates the plaintiff for his suffering determined by the jury to be $300,000 annually.

People v. Perry

271 Cal. App. 2d 84 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 26, 1969

The equally well recognized exceptions to this rule are clearly defined. … The trial court, however, should be guided by the rule that such proof is to be received with ‘ extreme cau+ion.’ and if its connection with the crime charged is not clearly perceived, the doubt is to be resolved in favor