Case law

Tangora v. Matanky

231 Cal. App. 2d 468 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 24, 1964

Hewitt, a well qualified expert, called by respondent, testified in answer to a comprehensive hypothetical question embracing deceased’s symptoms that it was within the standard of practice to administer penicillin. … Tragic as it may be that death resulted from the administration of a commonly used and highly beneficial drug, the evidence, notwithstanding some conflicts, clearly sustains the verdict that the death was not proximately

In re Aaron J.

California Court of Appeal · May 1, 2018

Moreover, the arguments in favor of both dependency and wardship were clearly articulated for the court’s benefit. … The juvenile court’s decision as to whether a previously made juvenile court order should be modified rests within the court’s discretion and thus will not be disturbed on appeal unless an abuse of discretion is clearly established

Atkinson v. Elk Corporation

135 Cal. Rptr. 2d 433 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 11, 2003

And that is the issue of consumer goods and whether this case qualifies under Song-Beverly. And so, as a process, I went to [Civil Code section] 1791 and read that a few times. … Thus, we begin with the well-established principle that statutory construction is a question of law. (National R.V., Inc. v. Foreman (1995) 34 *750 Cal.App.4th 1072, 1077 [ 40 Cal.Rptr.2d 672 ].)

Orth v. Superior Court

244 Cal. App. 2d 474 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 24, 1966

Ditto is the duly appointed, qualified and acting administratrix of the estate. On October 8, 1964, she caused to be made the first publication of notice to creditors. (Prob. Code, § 700.) … It very clearly established that the estate considered that no damages were due the claimant, whether $0.01 or $25,000, or, for that matter, $100,000.

McCluskey v. Henry

California Court of Appeal · Nov 2, 2020

Contrary to Mogan’s assertions, section 128.7 clearly states the specific criteria that must be satisfied to avoid sanctions and further clearly states that attorney fees or other expenses may be awarded as a result of sanctionable … Mogan also argues that defendants gained nothing by filing an opposition to the amended motion to lift the stay and therefore did not qualify as prevailing parties as defined in section 128.7.

Cooper v. Equity General Insurance

219 Cal. App. 3d 1252 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 27, 1990

Clearly, Equity has not shown how it can amend. … Superior Court (1979) 23 Cal.3d 880 [ 153 Cal.Rptr. 842 , 592 P.2d 329 ] established a private right of action for violation of Insurance Code section 790.03. This right was removed by Moradi-Shalal v.

Sterling v. Title Insurance & Trust Co.

53 Cal. App. 2d 736 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 31, 1942

Alice Bolán Emery died in Los Angeles County March 11, 1939; defendant executor was appointed and qualified April 4, 1939, and on that date notice to creditors was first published, fixing October 8, 1939, as the last day … That they referred to the debt evidenced by the note is sufficiently established.

Estate of Lynch

83 Cal. App. 3d 296 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 27, 1978

The Public Administrator was duly appointed and qualified as administrator on November 23, 1973. … It is clearly misleading, in that it implies a mutality of interest between assignee and heir which does not, in fact, exist.

Novartis Pharmaceuticals v. Superior Court CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · May 13, 2021

privilege or immunity. … “If a receiving party, upon review of materials produced to it, becomes aware that any portion of such material is protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product immunity, or other privilege or immunity, the receiving

People v. Williams

93 Cal. App. 3d 40 · California Court of Appeal · May 16, 1979

Defendant argues that the instant case is clearly distinguishable from Rojas and Quaintance , and that People v. … The errors which we have discussed herein are clearly prejudicial and mandate a reversal of the defendant’s conviction. (See Chapman v.

People v. Constancio

42 Cal. App. 3d 533 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 17, 1974

Here the officers had information based on the recent personal observations of an informant of established reliability that defendants had engaged in sales of narcotics from their residence. … Here, it clearly appears, the officers gave both portions of such notice. But in this case we are presented with a further question.

County of Tuolumne v. State Board of Equalization

206 Cal. App. 2d 352 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 1, 1962

*356 STONE, by a qualified engineer, particularly where the manner of evaluation had been superseded by a review and equalization decision by the State Board of Equalization. … It would be clearly a property right, and it being incidental and appurtenant to land, it was real property.” (See also Merritt v.

Zinn v. Ex-Cell-O Corp.

148 Cal. App. 2d 56 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 29, 1957

Certainly the fact of damage is thus established. … That Washington does not allow interest on unliquidated damages in tort cases is clearly apparent from the decisions of that state. See Ikeda v.

In re S.E.

California Court of Appeal · Mar 18, 2020

Clearly, the certified documents would be sufficient, termed derivative victims. … including, where mental health services were received, “a description of the services provided along with a statement that the services were in fact received and that such services were required as a direct result of the qualifying

Reclamation District No. 108 v. Ash

58 Cal. App. 238 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 21, 1922

Maurice as commissioners of assessment, pursuant to section 3456 of the Political Code, for the purpose of levying an assessment based upon said plan and estimates and thereafter the said commissioners of assessment duly qualified … Thus the specific objection to the plan is presented and it is hence argued that it is beyond the power of the board definitely to establish the duty of water or likewise to establish a particular area which should be irrigated

People v. Moore

143 Cal. App. 2d 333 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 23, 1956

This evidence *338 was clearly intended to undermine the confidence of the jury in the impartiality of those police officers as to defendants and in the value of their testimony. … Knowles, 35 Cal.2d 175, 187 [ 217 P.2d 1 ].) “ The applicability of section 654 depends upon whether a separate and distinct act can be established as the basis of each conviction (citation). ...

People v. Mixon

225 Cal. App. 3d 1471 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 27, 1990

Clearly, the Legislature intended, as due process requires (Pate v. … Defendant does contend the evidence establishes only one not two rapes. We separately consider this claim later in our opinion.

The People v. McCoy

215 Cal. App. 4th 1510 · California Court of Appeal · May 3, 2013

Defendant quotes only the first sentence and argues: “Clearly, the magistrate had already made up his mind.” We disagree for two reasons. … He then complained he was denied a competency hearing, in which he believed a “qualified witness” would testify to his mental state.

Lopez v. La Casa de Las Madres

California Court of Appeal · Mar 16, 2023

To establish discrimination based on a disability, the court found, Lopez was required to prove the following elements: (1) she suffers from a disability; (2) she is otherwise qualified to do her job, with or without an accommodation … Courts give substantial deference to the FEHC’s interpretation of the FEHA unless the agency’s interpretation “is ‘clearly erroneous or unauthorized.’ ” (Kelly v. Methodist Hospital of So.

People v. Ortiz CA1/5

California Court of Appeal · Oct 23, 2015

A witness is qualified to testify as an expert if he or she “has special knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education sufficient to qualify him [or her] as an expert on the subject to which his [or her] testimony … “Such an abuse of discretion will be found only where ‘ “the evidence shows that a witness clearly lacks qualification as an expert . . . .” ’ ” (People v. Chavez (1985) 39 Cal.3d 823, 828.)