Case law

People v. Weaver

California Court of Appeal · Jul 1, 2019

“Other crimes evidence is admissible to establish two different types or categories of motive evidence.” (People v. Spector (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1335, 1381 (Spector).) … Statutory Overview Section 1001.36 creates a “pretrial diversion” program for certain defendants who suffer from a diagnosed and qualifying mental disorder. (§ 1001.36, subd. (b)(1)(A).)

Arendt v. Williams CA3

California Court of Appeal · Sep 19, 2023

The court of appeal then relied on the Restatement Second of Torts (Restatement) to help it define what type of conduct would qualify as malicious prosecution after the criminal prosecution had begun. … Unlike persons mandated by statute to report suspected child abuse who are given absolute immunity for reporting, ordinary citizens have no similar absolute immunity. (Pen. Code, § 11172, subd. (a).)

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.]

People v. Breceda

California Court of Appeal · Mar 9, 2022

But Breceda cites to no case, and we found none that states a lengthy delay alone establishes a violation of due process. … Here, the record does not establish Breceda suffered actual prejudice.

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.

Zalac v. Governing Board of Ferndale Unified School District

120 Cal. Rptr. 2d 615 · California Court of Appeal · May 28, 2002

‘Indeterminate’ duration refers to a period of time which is not clearly established or known in advance.” (Id. at p. 123.) … This permits the hiring of qualified persons for categorically funded programs of undetermined duration without incurring responsibility to grant tenured status based on such teaching services alone.” (Winslow 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.

People v. Fuentes

61 Cal. App. 4th 956 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 25, 1998

Reyna, who was granted immunity in return for his testimony, testified that the plan to rob someone was made by the group (all of whom were D.B.S. gang members) before they left the house to go to Planada. 1 Reyna said the … First, in conformance with the Framers’ preference for face-to-face accusation, the Sixth Amendment establishes a rule of necessity.

People v. Viloria CA4/3

California Court of Appeal · Jul 10, 2024

The process begins when a defendant previously convicted of a qualifying offense files a petition pursuant to section 1172.6. … Here, the record of conviction established Viloria was charged with murder, robbery, and the felony-murder special circumstance.

Tarbet v. East Bay Municipal Utility Dist.

California Court of Appeal · Apr 29, 2015

The relevant statutes are clearly intended to apply to a local agency only. Section 66420 provides: “ ‘Local agency’ means a city, county or city and county.” … There is nothing in the regulations supporting the view that the District qualifies as an “advisory agency” under these regulations.11 10 At oral argument, plaintiff spent considerable time contending Alameda County Code

People v. Williams

170 Cal. App. 4th 587 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 23, 2009

The record clearly shows the contrary. … The People concede that the instmctions on predicate offenses were incomplete or ambiguous as to what kind of assault would qualify as a predicate offense.

Craig v. City of Poway

28 Cal. App. 4th 319 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 13, 1994

The court clearly precluded the Agency from introducing evidence of the affordability of the neighborhood adjacent to Pomerado Road. 19 However, as reflected above, the court never prevented the Agency from presenting evidence … Section 50105 provided “ ‘Very low income households’ means persons and families whose incomes do not exceed qualifying limits for very low income families as established . . . pursuant to Section 8 of the United States Housing

Pacific National Bank v. Regents of University

243 Cal. App. 2d 102 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 23, 1966

In the cases upon which respondent relies, the testator provided language which clearly reflected on the distribution of the tax burden. … phrased in qualified language and thus did not raise an estoppel (Desny v.

People v. Carlin

178 Cal. App. 2d 705 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 9, 1960

We think that the evidence clearly supports the verdicts. … Cross-examination of a defendant may be directed at eliciting any matter which may tend to overcome or qualify the effect of his direct testimony. (Pen. Code, § 1323; People v.

South County Citizens v. Co. of Nevada

California Court of Appeal · Nov 6, 2013

“CEQA establishes no categorical legal imperative as to the scope of alternatives to be analyzed in an EIR. … Feasibility was just one of the factors to be considered in determining whether the staff alternative qualified as significant new information.

People v. Espey CA3

California Court of Appeal · Feb 19, 2021

Defendant has failed to clearly show that the sentencing decision was irrational or arbitrary. … Accordingly, we cannot clearly determine that remand is futile on the record before us.

City of Pleasanton v. Board of Administration of Public Employees' Retirement System

211 Cal. App. 4th 522 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 29, 2012

or “Shift Differential,” and also qualified as part of Linhart’s “base salary” under section 20636. … The evidence established Linhart was routinely and consistently scheduled to work a standard daytime shift of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.

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.

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.”

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