Case law

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.”

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

Civil Rights Dept. v. Cathy's Creations

California Court of Appeal · Feb 11, 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.)

LAOSD Asbestos Cases

California Court of Appeal · Jan 22, 2020

As the person most qualified to speak for respondent, he testified respondent never found asbestos particles in any of its source mines. … [not] . . . a mineralogist [and does not] demonstrate any expertise that would qualify him as an expert in mineralogy.”

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.

P. v. Ochoa CA2/7

California Court of Appeal · May 28, 2013

Even then I commented if he was qualified at all, he was marginally qualified. Looking now at his C.V., it doesn’t appear to me that he is qualified. … He has clearly some experience in digital imaging, demonstrating of digital cameras, training on Adobe Photoshop.

Thompson v. Levereau

79 Cal. App. 2d 762 · California Court of Appeal · May 20, 1947

Justice pro tempore Pox, the several provisions of the agreement were carefully analyzed and were clearly shown to be inconsistent with an 'intention or an attempt to transfer defendant’s interest in the partnership business … Consideration was given to plaintiff’s contention that defendant had assigned her interest in the business, retaining only a qualified life estate therein, but our conclusion was to the contrary.

Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power v. County of Inyo

California Court of Appeal · Aug 17, 2021

Class 16 covers certain acquisitions or transfers of land to establish a park. (Guidelines, § 15316.) … There are two ways a party, such as LADWP, may establish the unusual circumstances exception applies.

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.

Cole v. CALIFORNIA INS. GUAR. ASS'N

18 Cal. Rptr. 3d 801 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 20, 2004

CIGA's practices are evidence of the Insurance Commissioner's interpretation of the applicable statutes to which we give great weight unless clearly erroneous or unauthorized. ( Interstate Fire & Casualty Ins. Co. v. … See summary of the current Model Act at (as of Sept. 20, 2004). [5] "A person qualifies as disabled, and thereby eligible for SSDI benefits, only if his physical or mental impairment or impairments are of such severity that

Strobel v. Johnson & Johnson

California Court of Appeal · Sep 21, 2021

The tested samples of Mennen shave talc revealed “ ‘countable structures of amphibole’ minerals, the majority of which ‘were clearly asbestiform in crystalline habit.’ ” (Id. at p. 633.) … Azcona (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 504, 510 [“General acceptance means ‘a consensus drawn from a typical cross-section of the relevant, qualified scientific community.’ ”].)

Two Jinn, Inc. v. Government Payment Service, Inc.

233 Cal. App. 4th 1321 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 3, 2015

To satisfy the 8 UCL standing requirement, the plaintiff must “(1) establish a loss or deprivation of money or property sufficient to qualify as injury in fact, i.e., economic … That evidence clearly established that Aladdin lost customers because the 10 Legislature enacted Government Code section 6159 and that it would suffer that loss whether or not

Warfield v. Peninsula Golf & Country Club

214 Cal. App. 3d 646 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 5, 1989

Thus, plaintiff’s pleaded allegations, if proved, could qualify defendant club as a “business establishment” within the broad interpretation of that clause under the Act. *656 III. … On appeal, plaintiff, while not labeling which branch of the tort he contends was committed, most clearly contends that there has been public disclosure of private facts. . . .

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

Pyramid Land & Stock Co. v. Scott

51 Cal. App. 634 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 3, 1921

On redirect, however, the witness qualified that testimony by saying: “All the *644 water was in the creek, we didn’t claim it all but what water during the time we needed it. … Again, in the same case, the proposition is thus stated: “The burden is upon the party who claims title by prescription to clearly prove by competent evidence all the elements essential to such title.

Signature Log Homes v. Fidelity National Title CA4/2

California Court of Appeal · Aug 21, 2014

On remand, Fidelity moved for summary judgment on Signature’s wrongful foreclosure cause of action on the ground that as the trustee, Fidelity has qualified immunity from liability under Civil Code section 2924, which makes … Signature did not present any facts to support its assertion and, therefore, failed to establish grounds for a mandatory continuance.

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.

Sonoma County Human Services Department v. Dianne C.

96 Cal. App. 4th 805 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 28, 2002

Horton (1991) 54 Cal.3d 82, 90 [ 284 Cal.Rptr. 305 , 813 P.2d *810 1335 ].) 21 Code of Civil Procedure section 259 provides that “every court commissioner shall have the power” to “[a]ct as temporary judge when otherwise qualified … This provision is clearly inapplicable here, as there is no such order at issue.

El Patio v. Permanent Rent Control Board

110 Cal. App. 3d 915 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 6, 1980

As indicated above, this court originally denied the petition because petitioners had not established that review by original proceeding in this court was justified. … Clearly this rental property was purchased for the specific purpose of conversion to condominiums as a hopefully short-term profitable investment.