Case law

People v. McClung CA3

California Court of Appeal · Oct 16, 2025

New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466, Cabrera concluded that a finding of serious bodily injury did not necessarily establish a great bodily injury under section 1192.7, subdivision (c)(8). … Therefore, it is not a legal impossibility that defendant’s conduct qualified as a strike.

Union Bank v. Sec. Pac. Nat'l Bank

67 Cal. App. 3d 350 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 18, 1977

The Decree established two trusts with substantially similar dispositive provisions, and they are treated as one for the purposes of this opinion. … The appellant cites section 122 of the Probate Code 1 and other generally accepted rules of construction to establish its position that a condition of survival must be implied.

Thurston v. Midvale Corporation

California Court of Appeal · Sep 3, 2019

Plaintiff has established that Defendant’s website was not accessible under the ADA. … We decline to adopt what is clearly the minority position, and one which has failed to persuade any other federal court of appeal.

Larson v. Solbakken

221 Cal. App. 2d 410 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 22, 1963

In the light of the principles hereinabove discussed, the evidence was too remote and its rejection clearly within the trial judge’s discretion. … or to establish the condition of mind prior to or simultaneous with the accident.

Rogel v. Lynwood Redevelopment Agency

194 Cal. App. 4th 1319 · California Court of Appeal · May 2, 2011

At a hearing on May 20, 2009, the trial court noted Plaintiffs “clearly” were entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees. … The court further noted that “[t]he vast majority of [the association’s] time and effort was clearly spent on issues upon which the Police Department prevailed.” (Ibid.)

Wentworth v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal.

California Court of Appeal · Oct 23, 2024

Wentworth propounded the discovery requests to establish exactly who leaked the March 2016 letter. … There was no dispute that ADL qualified as a journalist. (Id. at pp. 1079–1080.)

People v. White CA3

California Court of Appeal · Jul 14, 2025

A Fairchild testified at the preliminary hearing pursuant to a grant of immunity under section 1324. … The trial court granted the request for immunity.

People v. Shively

California Court of Appeal · May 27, 2025

[p]roponents claimed the prosecution would be unable to prove an offense was committed for the benefit of, or in association with, a gang ‘except in the most egregious cases where a pattern of criminal gang activity was clearly … On appeal, the People argued 10 “that crimes that have an inherent financial benefit and that are identified as the gang’s primary activities qualify as a common benefit to the

Jensen v. Southern Pacific Co.

129 Cal. App. 2d 67 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 22, 1954

No. 149, naturally chose the latter as the more adequate and more clearly expressed and one which had been approved by the Supreme Court. … Under these circumstances we do not consider that defendant appropriately and adequately presented to the trial judge its desire for a suitable qualifying instruction concerning the circumstances which will excuse the violation

Russ-Field Corp. v. Underwriters at Lloyd's

164 Cal. App. 2d 83 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 9, 1958

Code, § 533] the nice distinctions often made necessary are dispensed with, and the general proposition is established that no form of negligence on the part of the insured, or his agents or others, leading to a loss avoids … In other words, the argument is that the element of negligence must be present to qualify the breach of contract as an insured risk.

Brooks v. Eugene Burger Management Corp.

215 Cal. App. 3d 1611 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 28, 1989

It would have been clearly visible to the victim and his mother. “3. The defendants had no means of controlling the busy thoroughfare onto which the child wandered. “4. … Plaintiff supplied no declaration from a qualified expert contradicting any of the opinions set forth above. The court found that Northern’s declaration had negated the element of causation.

People v. Mendoza

California Court of Appeal · Apr 20, 2017

Defendants attack the trial court’s justification for excluding the statements, which was based on Justice Kennard’s concurrence in Gordon, where she stated “it is well established that a statement made under a grant of immunity … The prosecution presented sufficient evidence for a reasonable trier of fact to find that defendants’ gang qualified as a criminal street gang beyond a reasonable doubt.

People v. Vidor CA1/1

California Court of Appeal · May 31, 2023

In sum—although the bases for establishing the underlying criteria have changed—a defendant still proves his or her eligibility for pretrial diversion if: (1) the defendant suffers from a qualifying mental disorder; and ( … As for Vidor’s criminal history, the record establishes that his crimes were of increasing seriousness.

Crusader Ins. Co. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co.

54 Cal. App. 4th 121 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 10, 1997

Case law, however, has often failed to distinguish clearly between the issue of whether a statute creates a wholly new private right to sue, and the use of a statute to establish an element of a preexisting common law cause … Thus a court “is not authorized to insert qualifying provisions not included and may not rewrite the statute to conform to an assumed intention which does not appear from its language.”

Kneeland v. Ethicon Suture Laboratories, Inc.

118 Cal. App. 2d 211 · California Court of Appeal · May 29, 1953

This, quite clearly, would not be enough to demonstrate that Ethieon was “doing business” within California under the earlier concept of that term. … The defendant had no office in Florida; had not qualified to do business there; had no bank account or books or records there, nor any telephone listing.

Citizens Against Airport Pollution v. City of San Jose

227 Cal. App. 4th 788 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 2, 2014

If the project does not qualify for a negative declaration, the agency must proceed to the third step in the process, full environmental review in an EIR.” … The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was established in 1992.

Jones v. Badagliacco-Cabrera CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · Dec 2, 2015

) " ' " 'The malice necessary to defeat a qualified privilege is "actual malice" which is established by a showing that the publication was motivated by hatred or ill will towards the plaintiff or by a showing that … Accordingly, Jones cannot establish a cause of action for violation of due process.

Estate of Hammer

19 Cal. App. 4th 1621 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 4, 1993

Frances Hammer had also established, outside of probate and not affected by her will, a separate $12 million trust with Weiss as beneficiary. … Although there is insufficient evidence of incapacity within the meaning of Probate Code section 8502 ( ante, fn. 3), our record shows that the executor was "otherwise not qualified."

People v. Williams CA1/1

California Court of Appeal · May 19, 2021

Indeed, “ ‘[O]fficial government records clearly describing a prior conviction presumptively establish that the conviction in fact occurred, assuming those records meet the threshold requirements of admissibility.’ ” (Ibid … Thus, only first-degree burglary qualifies as a strike offense under California law.

Hirdman v. Charter Communications, LLC

California Court of Appeal · Aug 4, 2025

Garamendi (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 460, 475 [unless a contrary intention is “clearly indicated by the statute,” courts will presume the Legislature intended terms of art to convey “their established legal or technical meanings … In construing a statute, courts are not authorized to insert qualifying language that is not included in its text. (G.F. Galaxy Corp. v. Johnson (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 542, 551.)