Case law

People v. Lee

115 Cal. Rptr. 2d 828 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 20, 2002

Badgett our Supreme Court quite clearly stated the exclusion of coerced testimony of a third party “is based on the idea that coerced testimony is inherently unreliable, and that its admission therefore violates a defendant … , Jasik, had made a pretrial statement to the police inculpating the defendant and had agreed to testify for the prosecution under an immunity agreement.

South Santa Clara Valley Water Conservation District v. Santa Clara Valley Water District

76 Cal. App. 3d 852 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 16, 1978

Sweet (1932) 214 Cal. 778, 782-783 [ 7 P.2d 1030 ], for the proposition that it has long been established in this state that districts such as plaintiff and defendant may be created by special law. … In this instance, the legislative intent that plaintiff continue its independent existence has been clearly expressed.

People v. Miami Nation Enterprises CA2/7

California Court of Appeal · Jan 21, 2014

large majority of the document requests were overbroad and thus necessarily sought a great deal of irrelevant information; several requests sought wholesale production of sensitive financial documents without sufficiently establishing … United States Swimming, Inc., supra, 200 Cal.App.4th at pages 1434- 1435 explained, “In a variety of similar contexts, the phrase ‘substantial justification’ has been understood to mean that a justification is clearly reasonable

Cox v. County of San Diego

233 Cal. App. 3d 300 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 12, 1991

Rather, the plain words of the statutes, the Charter and the rules negate the conclusions of the declaration, as such clearly state it is the personnel director, not the Commission, who has the power to approve an extension … shall be the duty of the appointing authority, during the probationary period of each employee in the classified service to investigate thoroughly the conduct of such employee, to determine whether the employee is fully qualified

Gates v. Discovery Communications, Inc.

131 Cal. Rptr. 2d 534 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 18, 2003

The defendant must establish that the challenged action qualifies for treatment under the section. … If the defendant establishes that the action qualifies for treatment under the section, the plaintiff must demonstrate the "probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim." (§ 425.16, subd. (b)(1).)

People v. Houser

85 Cal. App. 2d 686 · California Court of Appeal · May 26, 1948

At this point there was no evidence offered that defendant had been affected and no attempt on the part of the prosecution was made to establish that fact. … The questions as promulgated, i. e., as to whether or not the witnesses had heard of specific reports or rumors adverse to the trait of character involved, were carefully framed and clearly bring them within the rule set

People v. Bryant

191 Cal. App. 4th 1457 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 24, 2011

Clearly what was submitted to the trial court in this case were 13 inadmissible juror statements, none of which could be the basis for a finding of jury misconduct. … Nachtigal which was not sworn to as an affidavit or made under penalty of perjury and therefore does not qualify as an affidavit and could not be considered by the trial court in opposition to the motion.” (People v.

Westbrooks v. Gordon H. Ball, Inc.

248 Cal. App. 2d 209 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 27, 1967

This would be clearly against public policy as any attempt to safeguard people is to be encouraged, rather than discouraged. … Forrest was qualified to give his opinion as to the propriety of certain safety measures as contended by the appellants.

Doe v. United States Swimming, Inc.

200 Cal. App. 4th 1424 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 21, 2011

Plaintiff’s notice of deposition was directed to the person most qualified to testify on U.S. … Swimming failed to establish through Bielak’s declaration that its interpretation of the protective order was reasonably based in law and fact. If U.S.

People v. Mason

115 Cal. Rptr. 2d 359 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 13, 2002

Even simpler, the Legislature could have simply used the phrase “the victim” which would have clearly limited section 12022.53(d)’s operation as Wilson suggests. … Rather, the only limitation is that only one enhancement may be imposed per crime (i.e., qualifying felony).

People v. Carrillo CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · Feb 9, 2016

'[T]o qualify for resentencing under the new shoplifting statute, the trial court must determine whether defendant entered "a commercial establishment with intent to commit larceny while that establishment [was] open during … It also established a procedure for qualifying defendants to petition for recall and modification of their prior convictions and sentences.

Coast Community College Dist. v. Com. on State Mandates

California Court of Appeal · May 1, 2020

But in this case, the appellate record does not establish that the costs to comply with the minimum 11 condition regulations are clearly satisfied “in advance” by existing … If so indicated, the availability of the course to all qualified students must also be affirmed.”

San Diego County Veterinary Medical Ass'n v. County of San Diego

10 Cal. Rptr. 3d 885 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 15, 2004

When a county’s action “is challenged as not being a valid exercise of police power, all presumptions favor its validity, and it will be upheld unless its unconstitutionality clearly and unmistakably appears.” … As established by the evidence presented at trial, when a dog with one of the four diseases protected by the wellness *1136 vaccination is brought to an animal shelter, the County is forced to pay for medical care, including

Walker v. City of Salinas

56 Cal. App. 3d 711 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 30, 1976

operation, if it does not impair the obligation of contracts *720 or disturb vested rights, yet it is to be presumed that no statute is intended to have that effect, and it will not be given that effect, unless such intention clearly … the petition is the genuine signature of the person whose name it purports to be; and [U] (b) That each signer of the petition or section thereof, was, at the time of placing such signature on the petition, a registered qualified

People v. Daniel W.

130 Cal. Rptr. 2d 412 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 10, 2003

Whatever the genesis of Evidence Code section 1253, Chad’s statement to the doctor was clearly admissible under that section, including its identification of the offender. … Reliability is established when the statements are admitted under a firmly rooted hearsay objection. The subsequent cases of United States v. Inadi (1986) 475 U.S. 387 [ 106 S.Ct. 1121 , 89 L.Ed.2d 390 ] and White v.

Friedman v. Dresel

139 Cal. App. 2d 333 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 20, 1956

Davis called in the defendant doctor who is a qualified orthopedic surgeon. Dr. … This was clearly prejudicial. The prejudicial nature of the instruction is not changed by the fact that plaintiff produced an expert to testify on the standard of care.

In Re Marriage of Sachs

116 Cal. Rptr. 2d 273 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 1, 2002

‘a defrauder who makes it big [could] always be cloaked and immune from a subsequent judgment debtor examination because there’s always, quote, somebody out there who can come around and initiate a prosecution.’ ” (Troy v … “The two statutes[, sections 3552 and 3665,] were clearly intended to function together as an integrated scheme, as is evidenced by the cross-references . . . .” (Keh v.

Honey Springs Homeowners Ass'n v. Board of Supervisors

157 Cal. App. 3d 1122 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 29, 1984

their land. 19 Since delay would thwart the objectives of the Williamson Act, the period of abeyance clearly cannot exceed nine years, the termination period within the nonrenewal procedure, because “cancellation is inconsistent … Register 70, No. 9, Feb. 28, 1970) entitled “Agreements Qualifying Land for Assessment as Open Space Lands.”

People v. Colbert CA2/3

California Court of Appeal · Oct 1, 2020

She argued that her conviction should be conditionally reversed and the matter remanded for the trial court to determine, retroactively, whether she qualified for a pretrial diversion program for defendants with qualifying … By claiming indigence, defendant requests a factual determination of her inability to pay based on facts the People dispute and which the record does not conclusively establish.

Marina Plaza v. California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission

73 Cal. App. 3d 311 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 14, 1977

This provision is clearly contingent, as the trial court found, on the issuance of all appropriate permits of which the instant permit is one. … Marina Plaza itself conceded this principle when it chose not to seek adjudication of rights (which it now alleges were vested) under the procedures established by act.