Case law

Circle K Ranch Corp. v. Board of Sup'rs

94 Cal. Rptr. 2d 97 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 21, 2000

Section 66412.7 defines the time a subdivision is established. It provides in part, "A subdivision shall be deemed established ... on the date of recordation of the final map or parcel map...." … Circle K posits that the official maps adopted by Santa Barbara County in 1889 and 1909 qualify under the subdivision. But those maps were prepared for assessment purposes.

Sarten v. Pomatto

192 Cal. App. 2d 288 · California Court of Appeal · May 18, 1961

The escrow charges and the attorney’s fee, under the circumstances, clearly were Pomatto’s obligations. … This conclusion comports with the qualified application of the rule heretofore noted.

Cho v. Seagate Technology Holdings, Inc.

177 Cal. App. 4th 734 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 15, 2009

Klausner provides us no authority to support his contention, and we have found none that compels the establishment of such a definite fund. … The rules reflect a scheme that is designed to clearly describe class members who should be notified of the action and may be affected by its resolution.

California Correctional Peace Officers Ass'n v. State

82 Cal. App. 4th 294 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 18, 2000

“As a matter of constitutional law, it is well established that a public employee has no absolute right to refuse to answer potentially incriminating questions posed by his employer. … The declarations in the present case clearly indicate that subdivision (h) was violated on a number of occasions. Officers who invoked their right to remain silent should have been given admonishments.

Albers v. Shell Company

104 Cal. App. 733 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 28, 1930

The court further held that the facts detailed in that case establish gross negligence. In Mitchell v. Raymond, 181 Wis. 591 [ 195 N. … W. 525 ], or to qualify the rule thereby recognized, namely, that the guest who comes upon the premises or enters into the vehicle of another, must take such premises or vehicle as he finds them, and as it pleases the owner

Estate of Cooper

274 Cal. App. 2d 70 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 17, 1969

the decree, it can be used to explain it where the decree taken alone is uncertain, vague and ambiguous. ... [4] The decree does not appear to be uncertain or ambiguous in respect to each child's ultimate share, for it clearly … Thus, it has been said (Estate of Smith (1961) 196 Cal.App.2d 544 at page 549 [ 16 Cal.Rptr. 681 ]): "[4] Whenever there is in a will a devise in qualified terms but followed by a direction for the devisee to leave the property

People v. Mowatt

56 Cal. App. 4th 713 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 22, 1997

The hunting knife wielded by Mowatt would qualify as a “dirk or dagger” under the amended version of section 12020, subdivision (c)(24), or *720 trader the former case law definition (see People v. … The Attorney General further contends the knife’s status as a “dirk or dagger” was established by Mowatt’s attempted use of the knife as a weapon.

People v. Ramsey

83 Cal. App. 2d 707 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 18, 1948

Harman’s evidence that no force or violence was used on appellant and that no promise of immunity or hope of reward was held out to her. … Emery, 79 Cal.App.2d 226, 231 [ 179 P.2d 843 ].) (2) Anne was not qualified to answer the question.

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.

Davis v. City of Sacramento

24 Cal. App. 4th 393 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 31, 1994

. *398 Plaintiffs also contend the evidence establishes negligence as a matter of law. We shall affirm. … This is clearly not the same thing as good cause for actual production and does not even hint at relevance.

Boquilon v. Beckwith

49 Cal. App. 4th 1697 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 11, 1996

Clearly, the encumbrance by American Savings was done with the knowledge, consent and agreement of the Boquilon’s. … Municipal Court (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 268 [ 237 Cal.Rptr. 269 ] (Sundance), the Boquilons argue that the proof required to establish their Home Equity Sales Contracts Act claim was the same as that required to establish their

Talley v. County of Fresno

California Court of Appeal · Jul 10, 2020

This rationale clearly indicates that the Legislature assumed and intended that disabled persons need to be compensated ‘employees’ in order to benefit from the FEHA’s expanded protection.” … That alone excludes them from qualifying as remuneration. (O’Connor, supra, 126 F.3d at pp 115–116; cf.

Hayden v. Security Homes Estate

175 Cal. App. 2d 223 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 12, 1959

That said defendants, by reason of the above, were not and are not entitled to urge the rights, powers, privileges and immunities peculiar to a non-profit cooperative corporation to the financial detriment of plaintiff.” … There was clearly no waiver by the defendants.

Mercury Insurance v. Vanwanseele-Walker

41 Cal. App. 4th 1093 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 10, 1996

As we shall explain, the answer clearly mandated by Insurance Code section 11580.2, subdivision (PX4) 1 is that the insurance benefits are reduced by the amount received from the car manufacturer. … Section 11580.2(p)(4) Section 11580.2(p)(4) establishes the maximum amount for which an insurer must pay under an underinsured motorist policy.

County of Los Angeles v. Sasaki

23 Cal. App. 4th 1442 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 30, 1994

We conclude the County has not established that the reallocation of property tax revenue from local governments to schools mandated by the Legislature in SB 1135 violates the home rule provisions of the California Constitution … This clearly evidences a grant of authority to the Legislature to enact implementing legislation.”

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.

Riverwatch v. County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health

175 Cal. App. 4th 768 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 12, 2009

DEH and GCL also maintained that Pala Band’s personal stake was “clearly evidenced by its long history of opposition to this project in every forum available to it.” … The party seeking attorney fees need not *783 prevail on all its claims alleged in order to qualify for an award. (See, e.g., Harbor v.

People v. Yoshimura

91 Cal. App. 3d 609 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 5, 1979

Some entries on the handwritten documents appear to qualify as “statements” within this definition. (See People v. Allen (1976) 65 Cal.App.3d 426, 433-434 [ 135 Cal.Rptr. 276 ].) … Each of these eleven prospective jurors were not asked about each subject mentioned, but collective awareness of all of them was clearly established: with one or two insignificant exceptions, none professed ignorance of any

Groves v. Superior Court

62 Cal. App. 2d 559 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 26, 1944

Prior to that time, and after the trial of the first action, the execution sales had taken place and Morvay had asserted and established his rights as declared by the second judgment. … For the foregoing reasons the relief attempted to be granted by the order was clearly beyond the jurisdiction of the court in the contempt proceeding.

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.