Case law

Dababneh v. Lopez CA3

California Court of Appeal · Oct 1, 2021

The court concluded that establishing Lopez knew her statements were false “is essentially one and the same” as establishing that they were false. … The court concluded Lopez’s complaint letter qualified for this privilege but the press conference did not.

INT'L UNION OF UNITED AUTO. v. Dept. of Human Res.

58 Cal. App. 3d 924 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 8, 1976

Needless to say, there are persons best qualified to work on one make of automobile, but we cannot conclude that available work on another make would be so different as to cause the individual to be without job opportunity … The cases relied upon by the petitioners are clearly distinguishable from the instant case.

Key v. Tyler

California Court of Appeal · May 28, 2024

However, we emphasized that Key’s showing did not establish the absence of probable cause as a matter of law. (Id. at p. 539.) … This significant change amounted to the type of contest that the Trustors clearly intended to trigger the full scope of the forfeitures identified in the No Contest Clause. (Cf.

People v. Vang

California Court of Appeal · Aug 5, 2022

Because the gravamen of the offense requires “ ‘some form of compulsion,’ ” the concepts of consent and force (or fear) “ ‘are clearly intertwined.’ ” (Majors, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 327.) … If mere participation in a qualifying felony that results in death were sufficient to qualify one as the “actual killer,” the language in section 189, subdivision (e)(1) would be superfluous.7 It is, of course, well established

People v. Smith

38 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 19, 2006

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.

Manti v. Gunari

5 Cal. App. 3d 442 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 17, 1970

Only the duly qualified executor *447 or administrator may bring an action for recovery of personalty. (Hall v. Alexander (1937) 18 Cal.App.2d 660, 663 [ 64 P.2d 767 ]; Rogers v. … The plaintiff, and not the defendant, had the burden of proof in attempt *453 ing to establish a constructive trust, and the evidence fails to support grounds to establish it. (Cf. Carter v.

Esberg v. Union Oil Co.

104 Cal. Rptr. 2d 477 · California Court of Appeal · May 16, 2001

Moreover, the other criteria listed in Stevenson for establishing a public policy tort, i.e., the policy benefits society at large, is substantial and fundamental and was well established at the time of the conduct ( Stevenson … Esberg complains the effect of inequality in educational opportunities means the older worker becomes less qualified to compete for promotions or move into new fields.

In re Tellez

California Court of Appeal · Oct 18, 2022

As we discuss below, Tellez has established neither deficient performance nor prejudice. 1. … Moreover, as we have discussed, the professional norms prevailing at the time of the plea did not clearly require counsel to give such advice and still do not do so.

640 Tenth, LP v. Newsom

California Court of Appeal · Jun 9, 2022

. [¶] “Nothing related to the establishment or implementation of . . . criteria or procedures [established by the Public Health Officer], or any other aspect of this Order, shall be subject … The Governor’s order is clearly not about internal management of local government.

Oil Lease Service, Inc. v. Stephenson

162 Cal. App. 2d 100 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 14, 1958

Moreover, it appears that the confirmation slip employed in this manner clearly constituted a certificate of interest in an oil lease. … This document so employed clearly brings it within the operation of section 25008 of the Corporations Code.

Civil Rights Dept. v. Cathy's Creations

California Court of Appeal · Mar 5, 2025

“The purpose of the [UCRA] is to create and preserve ‘a nondiscriminatory environment in California business establishments by “banishing” or “eradicating” arbitrary, invidious discrimination by such establishments.’ … The UCRA “clearly is not limited to [wholly] exclusionary practices” but requires “equal treatment of patrons in all aspects of the business.” (Koire, supra, 40 Cal.3d at p. 29.)

People v. Maugh

1 Cal. App. 3d 856 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 19, 1969

The minute order of April 18, 1968, recites, “Respective counsel stipulate that the doctors are duly qualified psychiatrists, that their reports may be received in evidence subject to cross examination, and that the doctors … Section 5512, Welfare and Institu *866 tions Code clearly authorizes the superior court to make a finding on the issue of whether he would benefit by care or treatment in a state hospital.

Dinkins v. American National Insurance

92 Cal. App. 3d 222 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 26, 1979

Five were under the age of eighteen, and thus qualified for coverage under the *225 children’s term rider offered by defendant. The premium for the policy insuring the life of plaintiff for $3,000 was $13.63 a month. … Maybe I did and maybe I didn’t.” 2 If it were necessary to reach defendant’s contentions based on sufficiency of the evidence, we could not escape the conclusion that the evidence clearly was insufficient to support the compensatory

Newtown Preservation Society v. County of El Dorado

California Court of Appeal · Jun 16, 2021

Testimony by members of the public on such issues does not qualify as substantial evidence. [Citations.]’ [Citation.] … A lay person’s opinion based on technical information that requires expertise does not qualify as substantial evidence. (Joshua Tree Downtown Business Alliance v.

Norton v. Bunnell

257 Cal. App. 2d 324 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 22, 1967

The objection was based on the failure to qualify the coroner as an expert in the law of physics or dynamics and transference of pressure and force. … This thesis Avas clearly rejected by the trial court and it is not necessary to determine whether the evidence would have supported such a finding.

HOSPITAL COMMITTEE FOR LIVERMORE-PLEASANTON AREAS v. City of Oakland

176 Cal. App. 4th 1360 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 24, 2009

When section 4011, subdivision (b) was enacted in 1961 (fn. 3, ante), the provision ostensibly making the county liable for the hospital care of prisoners taken from county jail was qualified by one stating that cities are … (Sharp Healthcare, supra, 156 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1310-1311.) 6 This would be essentially the same test as the one used to determine when a person becomes a “prisoner” for purposes of governmental immunities. (Gov.

Phelps v. ORANGE COUNTY ASSESSMENT APPEALS BD. NO. 1

175 Cal. App. 4th 448 · California Court of Appeal · May 27, 2009

Plaintiff contends the transfer of Wilson's interest as an income beneficiary to his four children did not qualify as a change of ownership under Revenue and Taxation Code section 60. [1] For a change of ownership to occur … Accordingly, Reilly concluded that "[t]he receipt of income generated by property qualifies as a `beneficial use' of the property ...." ( Reilly, at p. 495.)

Ass'n for Protection of Environmental Values v. City of Ukiah

2 Cal. App. 4th 720 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 17, 1991

Association is clearly wrong. … argument” standard that clearly applies when reviewing a negative declaration is not the standard of review for a challenge to a decision that a project is categorically exempt.

People v. Adams

California Court of Appeal · Oct 12, 2018

Our review is governed by well established rules of statutory construction. Our Supreme Court examined these rules in Even Zohar Construction & Remodeling, Inc. v. … The simple kidnapping instructions were clearly delineated and, as noted, referred to by the trial court when instructing concerning kidnapping qualifying circumstance pursuant to CALCRIM No. 3179.

A.L. v. Harbor Developmental Disabilities Foundation

California Court of Appeal · May 30, 2024

To prevail on such a motion, the moving party—here, the Regional Center—must show that the plaintiff “has not established, and reasonably cannot be expected to establish, one or more elements of the cause of action in question … This argument not only ignores that the immunity enjoyed by public agencies is limited and does not extend to the negligent failure to protect against risks (Gov.