Case law

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.

Association for a Cleaner Environment v. Yosemite Community College District

10 Cal. Rptr. 3d 560 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 4, 2004

HMS concluded that the level of lead in the soil samples exceeds California regulatory levels and therefore qualified the materials as hazardous waste. … Clearly, these activities meet the first test for a “project”: whether there has been an “activity directly undertaken by any public agency.” (§ 21065, subd. (a).)

Wickline v. State of California

192 Cal. App. 3d 1630 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 30, 1986

to apply to provide the State with absolute immunity in this matter. … Rephrased, it establishes the general rule that “ ‘All persons are required to use ordinary care to prevent others being injured as a result of their conduct.’”

Kinnamon v. Staitman & Snyder

66 Cal. App. 3d 893 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 8, 1977

In the present case the balance clearly favors the protected activity over the restrictions imposed by the statute, which we declare to be unconstitutional on its face. … See also Veeder, Absolute Immunity in Defamation (1909) 9 Colum.L.Rev. 463, 487-488.) California courts have followed this section of the Restatement. (See Albertson v.

People v. Scott

75 Cal. Rptr. 2d 315 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 5, 1998

O’Clair (1st Cir. 1971) 451 F.2d 485, 486 , the First Circuit held if a defendant “feels qualified [to conduct his own appeal], he may choose to represent himself.” … Any pro se documents by represented parties not clearly coming within this exception will be returned unfiled.” (People v.

People v. Littlefield CA3

California Court of Appeal · Nov 18, 2015

In particular, the Legislature’s use of present tense language has often been interpreted as indicating an intent to establish ‘current’ requirements. For example, in People v. … The only criterion that must be met under subdivision (i) to establish a defendant’s disqualification is that the defendant must “have one or more [disqualifying] prior convictions.”

City of Montclair v. Cohen

California Court of Appeal · Feb 6, 2018

The trial court in City of Montclair characterized these housing authorities as “bona fide” in apparent recognition of the difference between well-established housing authorities and sham entities established for the purpose … DOF suggests that a legislative report noted that only a handful of housing authorities would qualify for the allowance and the $750,000 impact on the budget would be minimal.

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.)

Sully-Miller Contracting Co. v. California Occupational Safety & Health Appeals Board

41 Cal. Rptr. 3d 742 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 13, 2006

During this time, Manhole, another paving contractor, requested Sully-Miller to provide it with two qualified roller operators. … We must give great weight to the Board’s interpretation of the statutes and regulations it is charged with enforcing unless that interpretation is clearly erroneous or unauthorized. (Lusardi Construction Co. v.

Tillery v. Richland

158 Cal. App. 3d 957 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 1, 1984

Richland because “the evidence clearly shows that Dr. Richland is a decent and good man who saved other people’s lives.” … Richland because ‘the evidence clearly shows that Dr. Richland is a decent and good man who saved other people’s lives’.

Ruegg & Ellsworth v. City of Berkeley

California Court of Appeal · Apr 20, 2021

There is clearly a “direct, substantial connection” between section 65913.4 and the Legislature’s purpose of expediting and increasing approvals of affordable housing developments. … Respondents found that appellants did not qualify for a discounted AHMF because the project did not include any very low-income units.

Meritplan Ins. Co. v. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co.

247 Cal. App. 2d 451 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 23, 1966

It is my position that it is calling for an opinion of a person who is not qualified to give an opinion. ’ The colloquy that followed, between the court and counsel, clearly indicates that the case was tried upon the theory … In this case the liability is established by Universal’s acknowledgment of the validity of the Plynt claim.

People v. Freetown Holdings Co.

California Court of Appeal · Mar 28, 2024

Whatever effort he made, if any, is not apparent or visible and is clearly ineffective.” C The People documented specific crimes at Holiday. … For section 3482 immunity to apply, however, “the specific action causing the nuisance must be unequivocally authorized by statute.” (Citizens for Odor Nuisance Abatement v.

Nunez v. Pennisi

241 Cal. App. 4th 861 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 27, 2015

Instead, Nunez testified, he planned “to get qualified people to . . . get the work done.” This evidence supports an inference that Nunez knew Pennisi never refused to remedy any alleged defects. … Raboff (1956) 46 Cal.2d 375, 383 [“Clearly a person who attempts to establish a claim . . . knowing of its falsity can only be motivated by an improper purpose.”]; Ross v.

City of Montclair v. Cohen

California Court of Appeal · Mar 1, 2018

The trial court in City of Montclair characterized these housing authorities as “bona fide” in apparent recognition of the difference between well-established housing authorities and sham entities established for the purpose … DOF suggests that a legislative report noted that only a handful of housing authorities would qualify for the allowance and the $750,000 impact on the budget would be minimal.

California Homeless & Housing Coalition v. Anderson

31 Cal. App. 4th 450 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 9, 1995

[CJ0 The Committee bill does not change the present law flexibility which allows each state to establish its own need and payment standards for assistance. … That bill would have required the Department of Social Services to “contract with an independent, qualified, and reputable public or private entity for the reevaluation required by” section 602(h).

County of El Dorado v. Misura

33 Cal. App. 4th 73 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 15, 1995

Under these circumstances it is absolutely essential that the significance of the mathematical proof be clearly understood by both counsel and the fact-finder.” … Code, § 895.5) provides in relevant part: “(a) There is a rebuttable presumption, affecting the burden of proof, of paternity, if the court finds that the paternity index, as calculated by the experts qualified as examiners

State Farm General Insurance v. JT's Frames, Inc.

181 Cal. App. 4th 429 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 27, 2010

ly] invalidate] literally decades of established practice.” … Our holding establishes that State Farm had no duty to defend or indemnify defendant with whom JT’s entered into a settlement.

Pacific Bay Recovery v. Cal. Physicians' Services

California Court of Appeal · May 31, 2017

Pacific Bay then notes that the regulation provides a list of 20 practices that would qualify as an unfair payment plan, but does not include "denying complete and accurate claims." (See Cal. … The portion of the regulation on which Pacific Bay relies clearly covers a health plan that does not correctly pay proper claims. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 28, § 1300.71, subd.

Ross v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.

141 Cal. App. 2d 178 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 27, 1956

It states: “Appellant expends considerable effort in his brief to establish railway negligence. … The court held that such injuries must result from the dangerous or defective condition of “public property”; that governmental immunity which a city enjoys as a state agency can be taken , away only by legislative enactment