Case law

People v. Qualkinbush

California Court of Appeal · Jun 14, 2022

Analysis Qualkinbush contends that she met her burden to establish the six eligibility requirements for diversion and that the trial court abused its discretion by applying the general sentencing objectives contained … Clearly the court is not limited to excluding persons only because of the risk of committing a ‘super strike’—the right to exclude because of dangerousness goes well beyond that limited

Citizens for Responsible Government v. City of Albany

56 Cal. App. 4th 1199 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 1, 1997

The establishment of, or any material amendment to, the Waterfront Master Plan or other specific plan for the Waterfront area. ... [^0 3. … In a short list of activities that do not qualify as prbjects, subdivision (b) of section 15378 mentions ballot measures.

Hall v. Butte Home Health, Inc.

60 Cal. App. 4th 308 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 22, 1997

Clearly, the infringement on their property rights is significant to plaintiffs. However, the record discloses the effect on plaintiffs’ property rights of the operation of *312 the group home is de minimis. … Defendant is a California nonprofit, public benefit corporation qualified as a charitable corporation under the Internal Revenue Code.

Calemine v. Samuelson

171 Cal. App. 4th 153 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 17, 2009

While the evidence established that Samuelson disclosed the existence of previous water intrusion, it further established that he did not disclose the existence of two lawsuits relating to that water intrusion. … pleaded, cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to that cause of action.”

Estate of Lacy

54 Cal. App. 3d 172 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 31, 1975

Lacy, a decree of partial distribution made in 1947, established a trust of which respondents are now the trustees. The decree of final distribution in 1948 again set forth the terms of the trust. … Such a requirement clearly would insure due process. At the same time, however, it might well make it practically impossible to administer some trusts.

Varas v. Barco Manufacturing Co.

205 Cal. App. 2d 246 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 28, 1962

But proximate cause may be established by circumstantial evidence. (See Agovino v. Kunze, 181 Cal.App.2d 591, 594 [ 5 Cal.Rptr. 534 ]; Williamson v. … The governing law was clearly expressed by Mr. Justice Vallée in Johnson v. Nicholson, supra, 159 Cal.App.2d 395 .

Gonzalez v. Superior Court

187 Cal. App. 4th 1120 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 28, 2010

Department of Health Services (1997) 16 Cal.4th 284, 297 [ 65 Cal.Rptr.2d 872 , 940 P.2d 323 ] [statute is to be “ ‘ “construed in light of common law decisions, unless its language ‘ “clearly and unequivocally discloses … Just as the judgment debtors could not establish a categorical right to relief in the face of the judgments, so Fireside could not establish, and made no attempt to establish, a categorical inability to establish such a right

Myasnyankin v. Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co.

California Court of Appeal · Jan 30, 2024

No such language appears in section 2071.1(a)(4), strongly suggesting the Legislature did not intend that right to be similarly qualified. … The California Supreme Court concluded the insured’s refusal to submit to examination and to produce his books and papers on the ground of his constitutional immunity was not justified, as the constitutional privilege did

Ciani v. San Diego Trust & Savings Bank

25 Cal. App. 4th 563 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 1, 1994

Clearly, they did not. The “benefit” conferred was the statutory interpretation in Ciani I which affirmed the continuing appellate jurisdiction of the Commission. … Although these achievements presumably qualify as “benefits,” it is difficult to overrule an implied trial court determination that they were not “substantial.” (See Hull v.

Buhl v. Hannigan

16 Cal. App. 4th 1612 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 30, 1993

Clearly, even if we agreed with appellants that the helmet law is unwise, we do not have the power to relieve them of their obligations to comply with it. … Appellants may not care if they die in an accident, but other users of the public highways would clearly prefer not to kill them. As aptly noted in Picou v.

Arluk Medical Center Industrial Group, Inc. v. Dobler

11 Cal. Rptr. 3d 194 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 22, 2004

And the notices the estate sent out to the settlor’s creditors and the claims those creditors filed with the executors/trustees qualified as notice and claims for purposes of the trust as well. … Yet once the trustee has notice of the lawsuit on the disputed claim, that immunity ceases—for both the trustee who ordered the distribution and the beneficiary who received it. The clear implication?

State of Cal. v. Super. Ct.

California Court of Appeal · Apr 26, 2022

Hall may later establish a proper interest in the identifying data. … It clearly contemplates that persons other than those involved in the reported accident may have a ‘proper interest’ in the reports.” (Hall, supra, 37 Cal.3d at p. 855, fn. 10.)

12319 Corp. v. Business License Commission

137 Cal. App. 3d 54 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 28, 1982

As a result of his knowledge, he is singularly qualified to represent those needs. … However, this does not establish grounds for disqualification of the panel.

Littlejohn v. Costco Wholesale Corp.

California Court of Appeal · Aug 3, 2018

For the same reason, the trial court clearly was correct in this case to sustain the demurrers to plaintiff’s first and second causes of action. … The import of this statement in part turns on what is required to establish a Board determination, addressed below.

Shumate v. Johnson Publishing Co.

139 Cal. App. 2d 121 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 9, 1956

The testimony of one of them was stricken apparently on the ground that he was not qualified. … The malice which may be “express” or “implied” is malice in fact; it is “express” when established by direct evidence and “implied” when established as an inference from indirect evidence of its existence.

People v. Watson

California Court of Appeal · May 20, 2021

Further, the statute’s use of “the,” a grammatical article which qualifies “underlying felony,” does not mandate the singular. (See Minish v. … The cases discussed ante, as well as the facts in this case, clearly illustrate that felony-murder liability may be predicated on more than one In his reply brief, Watson states, “There was no trial and the factual

Barrie v. Sacramento Municipal Utility District CA3

California Court of Appeal · Oct 17, 2025

Moreover, the objections are clearly boilerplate catchalls, as they are repeated for every paragraph. Accordingly, [Barrie’s] objections are OVERRULED.” (Fn. added.) … To establish a prima facie case for unlawful discrimination, a plaintiff must typically provide evidence that “(1) he was a member of a protected class, (2) he was qualified for the position he sought or was performing competently

Booth v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County

57 Cal. App. 4th 91 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 18, 1997

This section, part of Proposition 115, approved June 5, 1990, limits a preliminary examination to the establishment of probable cause and prohibits its use for “discovery.” … This section, part of Proposition 115, approved June 5, 1990, permits a “hearsay preliminary examination” if the witness is a qualified law enforcement officer.

California Medical Assn. v. Brian

30 Cal. App. 3d 637 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 20, 1973

of this section is to eliminate discrimination or segregation based on economic disability so that the county hospital and other hospitals in the community share in providing services to paying patients and to those who qualify … Clearly only defendants could explain why they deemed proportionate reductions not feasible, and the burden on this issue was theirs.”

Town of Atherton v. California High-Speed Rail Authority

228 Cal. App. 4th 314 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 24, 2014

“In distinguishing between proprietary action that is immune from preemption and impermissible attempts to regulate through the spending power, the key under Boston Harbor is to focus on two questions. … ‘A clearly inadequate or unsupported study is entitled to no judicial deference.’ [Citation.]