Case law

Cathay Bank v. Lee

14 Cal. App. 4th 1533 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 15, 1993

We must therefore conclude that the language in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the continuing guaranty agreement cannot, as a matter of law, establish an express waiver of the estoppel defense articulated by Gradsky . … Neil (1971) 22 Cal.App.3d 232, 236 [ 99 Cal.Rptr. 238 , 49 A.L.R.3d 549 ] (“The holding in Gradsky clearly pointed out that Code of Civil Procedure section 580d was not directly applicable to the situation of the guarantor

In re Jaiden G. CA5

California Court of Appeal · Dec 5, 2014

Clearly regularly established contact for these children of tender age was not happening and clearly father had not played a role in their lives such as to keep track of their whereabouts nor were we … A biological father is one whose paternity of the child has been established, but who has not established that he qualifies as the child’s presumed father. (In re Zacharia D., supra, at p. 449, fn. 15.)

Hernandez v. Castro CA4/2

California Court of Appeal · Jun 15, 2026

“This court may find error only if the witness ‘clearly lacks qualification as an expert.’” (People v. Singh, supra, at p. 1377.) B. Qualifications On October 31, 2023, the court heard Mrs. … Castro has not established prejudice warranting reversal. (Bigler-Engler v. Breg, Inc., supra, 7 Cal.App.5th at p. 296.)

Provost v. Regents of University of California

201 Cal. App. 4th 1289 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 14, 2011

But the rejection went to the insufficiency of a signature by an agent, not to the well-established rule that a corporation acts through its agents and employees. (Gardner v. … On the other hand holding that an officer, as opposed to another designated and qualified employee, must sign a settlement for it to be enforceable under section 664.6 makes no practical sense.

People v. Cornejo

California Court of Appeal · Oct 3, 2016

Additional Background Detective Jason Kirtlan interviewed Neal in the presence of Neal‘s attorney, who had secured an immunity agreement for Neal prior to the interview. … ‘s office, who agreed, and in this case gave him a letter of immunity.‖ During the prosecution‘s redirect examination, the prosecutor asked Detective Kirtlan: ―Is there anything other than what you‘ve already stated

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.

People Ex Rel. Department of Transportation v. Desert Outdoor Advertising, Inc.

68 Cal. App. 3d 440 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 14, 1977

Barr’s declaration in support of the summary judgment motion establishes without contradiction the permits for all four displays were canceled as of July 1, 1970, and no renewal fees were paid in 1971 or 1972. … A display (1) having a permit issued by the Department and (2) being located in a business area, thus immunizing it from removal, must be deemed “lawfully in existence” whenever those two conditions coexist.

People v. Fantuzzi CA2/2

California Court of Appeal · Dec 15, 2015

McGee (2006) 38 Cal.4th 682, 706 (McGee) established a procedure for determining whether an out-of-state prior conviction qualifies as a strike offense in California. … In addition, assuming the trial court properly considered the documentation related to defendant’s guilty plea, which consisted of documents approved in Taylor and Shepard, the intent element was not clearly established.

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

Keep Our Mountains Quiet v. County of Santa Clara

236 Cal. App. 4th 714 · California Court of Appeal · May 7, 2015

As part of that compliance report, County staff is required to retain a qualified noise consultant, paid for by Wozniak, to conduct noise readings at a minimum of four random events. … “The moving party bears ‘[t]he burden [of] establish[ing] each prerequisite to an award of attorney fees under section 1021.5.’ ” (Ibid.)

South Sutter, LLC v. Lj Sutter Partners, L.P

193 Cal. App. 4th 634 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 16, 2011

South Sutter argues the attorney fees order nonetheless does not qualify for establishing a direct estoppel. … And the negotiation of such an easement is clearly optional.

Lombardi v. Blois

230 Cal. App. 2d 191 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 19, 1964

Catherwood, supra, 67 Cal.App.2d 636 , this court relied upon Healy in construing the inter vivos trust established by S. … On the contrary he clearly stated that it was to be “per stirpes and not per capita” (italics added)—i.e., not in equal shares. If the division results in unequal shares, such was the trustor’s intent.

Luckey v. Superior Court

228 Cal. App. 4th 81 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 22, 2014

A class member who, upon receiving notice, files a written objection is clearly taking part in the litigation. … However, just because the parties may have chosen a qualified temporary judge in the instant action does not mean that a trial court should be required to cease protecting the interests of absent class members on nothing

Kolar v. Donahue, McIntosh & Hammerton

52 Cal. Rptr. 3d 712 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 21, 2006

To qualify for anti-SLAPP protection, the moving party must demonstrate the claim “arises from” those activities. … This is vastly different from a third party suing an attorney for petitioning activity, which clearly could have a chilling effect.

Agricultural Labor Relations Board v. Superior Court of Sacramento County

4 Cal. App. 5th 675 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 25, 2016

In addition to creating the board, the Act also established the position of the board’s general counsel. (§ 1149.) … Here, there is no dispute that the TRO packet and the authorization letter7 qualify as public records.

People v. Fernandez

222 Cal. App. 2d 760 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 2, 1963

The court was clearly in error in this matter and should have permitted the testimony. … The record does not establish that this ruling was arbitrary or based upon a mistaken belief as to ineligibility (2 Witkin, Cal. Crimes, § 1064, p. 1005).

Pardee Construction Co. v. Insurance of the West

92 Cal. Rptr. 2d 443 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 23, 2000

The Duty to Defend Preliminarily, it is firmly established the duty to defend is broader than the obligation to indemnify. … That definition only defines when “your work” is deemed completed to qualify within that coverage part.

Estate of Miller

230 Cal. App. 2d 888 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 24, 1964

trust provision is a nullity; it is true that the adjective qualifying the word discretion indicates plenary discretion. … Coker, 208 Ala. 354 [ 94 So. 566 ]: " 'Testator, very clearly, intended that his widow should have ample, suitable, and proper maintenance.

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."

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.