Case law

People v. Gaynor

223 Cal. App. 2d 575 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 19, 1963

Gaynor, since you have rejected the services of a well-qualified lawyer from the public defender’s office, I am going to send it [the ease] out to Division 41, sir, and you will have to represent yourself. … During this six-day period subpoenas were served on the numerous prosecution witnesses requiring their attendance upon the date established for the hearing.

Haney v. City of Los Angeles

134 Cal. Rptr. 2d 411 · California Court of Appeal · May 22, 2003

Crossman (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 476 [ 258 Cal.Rptr. 370 ], Cyril O’Connor (O’Connor) liquidated a bank account so his wife could qualify for governmental medical benefits. … In these circumstances, the department clearly did not abuse its discretion in discharging appellant. The judgment is affirmed. Mallano, J., concurred.

People v. Rubio CA4/3

California Court of Appeal · Jun 24, 2025

“The record of conviction will necessarily inform the trial court’s prima facie inquiry under section [1172.6], allowing the court to distinguish petitions with potential merit from those that are clearly meritless.” … Since the record of conviction established Rubio was not convicted under a vicarious liability theory, relief was properly denied by the court.

People v. Roberts

California Court of Appeal · Sep 9, 2025

) “ ‘ “A defendant challenging the constitutionality of a statute carries a heavy burden: ‘The courts will presume a statute is constitutional unless its unconstitutionality clearly, positively, and unmistakably appears … [It] requires only that the government identify a well-established and representative historical analogue, not a historical twin.

Barkett v. Brucato

122 Cal. App. 2d 264 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 28, 1953

Removing the roof of an occupied dwelling during the rainy season in the manner here done, and the other acts already described, clearly fall within the above definition. … In other words, these cases hold, based on the presumed intent of the parties, that such general clauses were never intended to immunize the landlord from responsibility for his acts of affirmative negligence.

Slocum v. State Board of Equalization

36 Cal. Rptr. 3d 627 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 9, 2005

Continuing in this vein, Airlines assert that the events of September 11, 2001, clearly constitute a misfortune or calamity as required by section 170, subdivision (a)(2). … Moreover, looking to the whole of the statute and its purpose, it is clear the Legislature intended the qualifying damage to be physical damage.

People v. Tucker CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · Mar 23, 2016

In this case the trial court concluded that entering a commercial establishment, during regular business hours to commit theft by false pretenses could not qualify as shoplifting under the new shoplifting statute, section … DISCUSSION There are two issues presented by this appeal, whether the entry into the store in this case to commit theft by false pretenses could qualify as shoplifting, and if it could, establishment is open during

Marriage of Holtz CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · Dec 19, 2022

On October 19, 2021, the federal court granted a motion to dismiss the superior court defendants based on judicial immunity. Holtz later dismissed all claims against the remaining parties.3 D. … Thus, our summary denials of these three writ petitions each qualify as final adverse determinations under section 391, subdivision (b)(1).5 5 Our summary denials of Benjamin’s other writ petitions do not qualify

People v. Allen

77 Cal. App. 3d 924 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 25, 1978

The minor must have had the expectation, the 'belief, the state of mind, that he was to *932 receive prosecution immunity, or a lighter juvenile disposition in connection with the other two robbery charges as well as the … He asserts that the question “clearly implied” that the jury suspected that appellant had been found guilty by another judge in issuing the arrest warrant and that the requested instruction was the type of general principle

OASIS WEST REALTY, LLC v. Goldman

182 Cal. App. 4th 688 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 3, 2010

The issue in the case was the defendants' claim of qualified immunity, on the theory that they had not violated any constitutional rights. … In order to establish a probability of prevailing, a plaintiff must "`state[] and substantiate[] a legally sufficient claim.'" ( Briggs v.

People v. Collins

45 Cal. App. 4th 849 · California Court of Appeal · May 21, 1996

Dethloff (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 620, 625 [ 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 814 ]), this rule applies only to subject matter jurisdiction, which was clearly present in this case. … That case is clearly distinguishable in that it dealt with the use of defendant’s statements taken pursuant to the plea bargain agreement at trial.

Samantha C. v. State Department of Developmental Services

207 Cal. App. 4th 71 · California Court of Appeal · May 24, 2012

The evidence established that Samantha’s impaired intellectual and social functioning originated in early childhood and resulted from a hypoxic birth episode. … “The burden is on the claimant to establish each prerequisite to an award of attorney fees under section 1021.5.” (Ebbetts Pass Forest Watch v.

Carsten v. City of Del Mar

8 Cal. App. 4th 1642 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 25, 1992

improvements after a lengthy public process; after approving and signing the contract for the proposed work under the Plan, the city council decided not to put Carsten’s initiative on the ballot; Del Mar received input from qualified … court acknowledged Del Mar’s proposed improvements would not constitute partial street closures. 12 Govemment Code section 40401, subdivision (c), authorizes city governments to pay all or part of the cost of work to “[establish

People v. Foster

6 Cal. App. 4th 1 · California Court of Appeal · May 5, 1992

We assume, without deciding, that (1) competent counsel would have discovered Frank Morgan's statement (or its equivalent), (2) the statement would have qualified as an Evidence Code section 1230 [6] declaration against * … Given this record, appellant's 12 convictions other than the 2 state prison priors, and the views clearly expressed by the trial court, we are satisfied it would be an "idle gesture[ ]" ( People v.

Daniels v. Shasta-Tehama-Trinity Joint Community College District

212 Cal. App. 3d 909 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 31, 1989

If a school district hires a certificated person as a temporary employee, the written statement shall clearly indicate the temporary nature of the employment and the length of time for which the person is being employed. … If a community college district hires a certificated person as a temporary employee, the written statement shall clearly indicate the temporary nature of the employment and the length of time for which the person is being

Wood v. Super. Ct.

California Court of Appeal · Apr 8, 2020

"The privilege is also to be strictly construed 'where the [attorney-client] relationship is not clearly established.' " (Uber Technologies, Inc. v. Google LLC (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 953, 967.) … by such establishments."

Melendrez v. D & I INVESTMENT, INC.

26 Cal. Rptr. 3d 413 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 29, 2005

In the event that both questions are answered in the affirmative (Borrowers argue), the foreclosure buyer cannot qualify as a BFP. … The second element required to establish BFP status is that the buyer have neither knowledge nor notice of the competing claim. (Triple A Management Co. v.

Normart v. Safer

67 Cal. App. 507 · California Court of Appeal · May 27, 1924

a date subsequent to the death of said Crosby, was, by proceedings duly had in the superior court in and for said county, regularly appointed administrator of the estate of said Crosby, deceased, that he thereafter duly qualified … He failed to perform the duty which the above section required of him and by his conduct prior to the commencement of this action and by his testimony in this case clearly indicated that he had no intention of taking charge

Johnson v. Continental Insurance Companies

202 Cal. App. 3d 477 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 24, 1988

The Declaration page of the policy clearly lists the policy limit of coverage applicable to “Part 4: Liability,” as $50,000.00. … Only the “liability” coverage pertains to claims made by others against the insured and establishes a “duty to defend” such claims. No other coverage includes language regarding a “duty to defend.”

People v. Jennings

97 Cal. Rptr. 2d 727 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 30, 2000

Appellant contends that, even if it is subject to the less rigorous rational basis test, section 1109 still does not meet the qualifying criteria identified by the Fitch court in the case of section 1108; namely, (a) the … “The [trial] court’s exercise of discretion under Evidence Code section 352 will not be disturbed on appeal unless the court clearly abused its discretion, e.g,, when the prejudicial effect of the evidence clearly *1315 outweighed