Case law

LVNV Funding v. Rodriguez

California Court of Appeal · Nov 12, 2024

Jan. 11, 2010) No. 1:09CV639, 2010 WL 118274, at *6 [“the legislative history of the FDCPA shows that Congress clearly intended to protect people subject to harassment by debt collectors as a result of mistaken identity”] … To qualify for the bona fide error defense under the FDCPA, the debt collector has an affirmative obligation to maintain procedures designed to avoid discoverable errors[.]” (Reichert v.

Yield Dynamics, Inc. v. TEA Systems Corp.

66 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 21, 2007

Zavecz’s code does not qualify for that.” … While the court’s use of these qualifiers may be regrettable, it is hardly fatal. The court went on to recite facts and findings tending to establish that no breach occurred, substantial or otherwise.

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

Ravettino v. City of San Diego

70 Cal. App. 2d 37 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 29, 1945

it, it is mainly because of the fact that the city council, by oversight or otherwise, failed to ratify or approve by ordinance the rules and regulations of the Harbor Commission, as adopted by them, that they now claim immunity … The negligence of the defendant was clearly established and the claimed contributory negligence of plaintiff, if any, was not very apparent.

People v. Hamilton

254 Cal. App. 2d 462 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 19, 1967

Appellant’s claims that the trial judge erred in ruling that Howe was a properly qualified expert has no merit. … Tom Woo, 181 Cal. 315, 326 [ 184 P. 389 ] : “For it is the function of the jury in the first instance, and of the trial court after verdict, to determine what facts are established by the evidence, and before the verdict

Western Air Lines, Inc. v. Sobieski

191 Cal. App. 2d 399 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 20, 1961

The quoted language clearly distinguishes the instant case where proper findings were made under the relevant Corporate Securities Act sections. … The superior court’s determination was confined to establishing whether or not the commissioner had jurisdiction.

Doyle v. Hamren

246 Cal. App. 2d 733 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 29, 1966

The evidence shows clearly that Mr. Hamren was the experienced expert who was licensed to operate the plane and that the proposed passengers had the choice of accepting or refusing the offer of a skilled man as pilot. … The evidence established that the fatal accident was the result of negligence on the part of the pilot or possibly the fault of the manufacturers of the aircraft.

In Re Guardianship of Lv

38 Cal. Rptr. 3d 894 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 7, 2006

The third step, applying the law to the facts, is reviewed under the deferential "`"`clearly erroneous standard'"'" if the inquiry is essentially factual, i.e., if it "`"`is founded "on the application of the [trial court's … A custodial parent's decisions regarding visitation are entitled to presumptive validity and must be accorded "special weight," but they are not immune from judicial review. ( Fenn v.

Godshalk v. City of San Diego

16 Cal. App. 3d 459 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 31, 1971

January 4, 1956, the Industrial Accident Commission (IAC), now the Workmen’s Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB), in a proceeding in which plaintiff had applied for compensation, found the evidence there presented failed to establish … It is also true that the presumption might be overcome by inferences clearly to be drawn that the required certificates had not been filed on May 31, 1955.

Kidwell v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

33 Cal. App. 4th 1130 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 3, 1995

He did not have advance approval because Berkeley clearly intended not to cover officers’ off-duty, lunchtime recreational basketball games. … Annulling the Board finding of noncompensability, the Fifth Appellate District held that the officer established a reasonable basis for his subjective belief that physical conditioning was required by Modesto.

People v. Pasa CA2/3

California Court of Appeal · Jan 30, 2025

Although the trial court did not track the statute’s language, its failure to do so fails to establish that the trial court misunderstood the law. … Even so, Oneal is not on point because the trial court here did not rely on Pasa’s criminal history to establish his dangerousness.

Smith v. City and County of San Francisco

225 Cal. App. 3d 38 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 14, 1990

Since appellants do not clearly identify which theory they rely upon, we will determine whether the second amended complaint states a cause of action for either form of inverse condemnation. A. … Section 7267.1 thus does not establish a general tort duty on the part of a local government.

People v. Davis

California Court of Appeal · Feb 26, 2015

(f).)1 We hold that when a trial court declines on this basis to grant an inmate’s petition for resentencing, that decision should be upheld on appeal unless the reviewing court is able to conclude that the decision qualifies … Subdivision (e) of section 1170.126 establishes the criteria to determine whether “[a]n inmate is eligible for resentencing.”

County Mobilehome Positive Action Committee, Inc. v. County of San Diego

62 Cal. App. 4th 727 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 26, 1998

Otherwise, one would be able to obtain immunity from state regulation by making private contractual arrangements. … The standard space lease is attached to the Accord, clearly stating in bold type that the lease is exempt from any rent control measures. Both the Accord and the standard space lease are for a duration of 15 years.

Los Angeles County Department of Children's Services v. Tony B.

17 Cal. App. 4th 825 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 3, 1993

The recent necessity for transferring ten panel attorneys . . . points to a serious shortage in the availability of qualified, experienced dependency attorneys. … There is no requirement in the statute that a parent establish, by a preponderance of the *832 evidence or otherwise, a continuing need for counsel. The right is unqualified.

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. . . .

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.

Cox v. County of Nevada CA3

California Court of Appeal · Feb 26, 2016

Nor does the booking photo of Soto’s shoulder, which plaintiffs claim “clearly shows an abscess on Soto’s right shoulder,” bolster their claim that County had notice. … Nothing in Valcarenghi’s declaration establishes any negligence or wrongful act by County staff.

People v. Magana

95 Cal. App. 3d 453 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 26, 1979

It is to be noted that a police officer, qualified as an expert in narcotics, expressed an opinion at the preliminary examination that the cocaine was possessed for sale. … Subsequent evidence established that the substance was cocaine.

Modiano v. City of Anaheim CA4/3

California Court of Appeal · Dec 30, 2013

We rejected the notion of federal preemption in Qualified Patients Assn. v. City of Anaheim (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 735, 761. … Justice Liu concluded, however, that “[b]ecause state law does not clearly authorize or intend to promote the operation of medical marijuana dispensaries, I agree that the City of Riverside’s prohibition on such dispensaries