Case law

Law School Admission Council, Inc. v. State

222 Cal. App. 4th 1265 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 13, 2014

Clearly, the [LSAC‟s] stringent documentation policies create a gap between individuals who can afford the expensive assessment and those who cannot. … Clearly, [LSAC‟s] stringent documentation policies create a gap between individuals who can afford the expensive assessment and those who cannot.

Alston v. McCormick Barstow CA5

California Court of Appeal · Nov 17, 2022

This is clearly a litigation-related activity which qualifies as protected activity under section 425.16. … information for litigation purposes qualifies as communicative conduct subject to the litigation privilege. (MMM Holdings, Inc. v.

Rademacher v. American Broadcasting Companies CA2/5

California Court of Appeal · May 15, 2026

Because they have better immunity than you do if you got vaccinated. … Employees needed to be vaccinated by November 1, 2021, unless they qualified for a religious or medical exemption.

In re R.V. CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · Dec 18, 2025

He was clearly familiar with the concept of adoption, since he disclosed that the paternal grandmother had adopted him and his brother. … Father’s relatives do not qualify as “extended relatives.”

People v. Sullivan

151 Cal. App. 4th 524 · California Court of Appeal · May 29, 2007

Mendoza (2000) 24 Cal.4th 130, 160 [ 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 485 , 6 P.3d 150 ].) “ 1 “ ‘The burden is on the party seeking severance to clearly establish that there is a substantial danger of prejudice requiring that the charges … Defendant qualifies as “precisely the type of offender from whom society seeks protection by the use of recidivist statutes.” (People v. Ingram (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 1397, 1415 [ 48 Cal.Rptr.2d 256 ].)

Santillan v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Fresno

202 Cal. App. 4th 708 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 6, 2012

The trial court has wide discretion in granting a new trial motion that will not be disturbed unless an abuse of discretion is clearly shown. … That should happen only where the surprise is clearly established and its consequences can be avoided at a new trial, and where the moving party is not guilty of laches and acted in good faith in failing to seek relief earlier

Rademacher v. American Broadcasting Companies CA2/5

California Court of Appeal · Apr 24, 2026

Because they have better immunity than you do if you got vaccinated. … Employees needed to be vaccinated by November 1, 2021, unless they qualified for a religious or medical exemption.

Squires v. City of Eureka

California Court of Appeal · Nov 14, 2014

immunity is not immediately available to the moving parties given the nature of the allegations in the complaint. … Clearly, Squires thinks it suspicious that Knight may have relied on an informant that Squires believes has no credibility.

Grossmont Union High School Dist. v. Diego Plus Education Corp.

California Court of Appeal · Dec 29, 2023

Clearly, unpublished Grossmont 2021 did not create any applicable legal precedent concerning the Unable-to-Locate exception. … As the trial court noted, Horvitz & Levy is “an established law firm, exclusively specializing in appellate litigation.”

People v. Robinson

53 Cal. App. 4th 270 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 4, 1997

“It is well established that an indigent defendant, even in a capital case, may not force the trial court to appoint a particular attorney. . . . … Calabria was fully qualified to represent Mr.

Pacific Arch. Collaborative v. State of Calif.

100 Cal. App. 3d 110 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 10, 1979

Hibernia Sav. & Loan Soc. (1944) 23 Cal.2d 741, 744 [ 146 P.2d 684 ].) (7) `Before a defendant's motion can be granted, it must clearly appear that the action is without merit, and every reasonable doubt must be resolved … (but not necessarily the other) cannot be established.

Amiodarone Cases

California Court of Appeal · Nov 3, 2022

Wyeth Laboratories, Inc. (9th Cir. 1968) 399 F.2d 121,131, recognizes an exception where a prescription drug is “ ‘not dispensed as such,’ but administered in [a] mass immunization program”].) … Notably, a prescription drug “label” need not include warnings for the drug to qualify for an exemption.

Leining v. Foster Poultry Farms, Inc.

California Court of Appeal · Mar 15, 2021

and are outside of such an establishment, or, in the case of imported articles which are not at such an establishment, after their entry into the United States.” … The structured investment vehicles could not be sold to the general public, but only through private placements to two limited categories of investors (qualified institutional investors and qualified purchasers), which included

Lake Merced Golf & Country Club v. Ocean Shore Railroad Co.

206 Cal. App. 2d 421 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 3, 1962

But, since the rule itself is one of equity, it is limited and qualified by considerations of fairness, convenience, and practicability. … Whether it was originally a partnership or a joint venture or an amorphous grouping of individuals does not clearly appear from the record.

Buchan v. United States Cycling Federation, Inc.

227 Cal. App. 3d 134 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 30, 1991

USCF contends that the issue regarding enforceability of the same release, as a matter of law, was clearly the same issue. … Let’s assume that this Court accepts that this is a matter of sufficient public *153 interest to qualify under Tunkl and that the only way that one can achieve status to become an international racer with all of the rewards

People v. Duffy

79 Cal. App. Supp. 2d 875 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 18, 1947

Such use of the streets and public places has, from ancient times, been a part of the privileges, immunities, rights, and liberties of citizens. . . . … These cases, admittedly early ones, are cited, first of all, to establish that, contrary to the opinion expressed in State v.

People v. Williams

174 Cal. App. 2d 364 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 9, 1959

Whether the conclusion is based upon observation of an act, condition or event or upon sound reason or whether the person forming it is qualified to form it and testify lo it can only be established by the examination of … Furthermore, the sole and only purpose served by the records in the trial was to establish the cause of death.

People v. Hall

79 Cal. Rptr. 2d 690 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 27, 1998

(a)(1), 211; count 3); and court findings that he had suffered two prior serious or violent felony convictions which qualify as strikes under the “Three Strikes” law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. … Hendrix (1997) 16 Cal.4th 508 [ 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 431 , 941 P.2d 64 ], our Supreme Court held that “subdivision (c)(6)[, which is identical to subdivision (a)(6) of section 1170.12 in this regard] clearly provides that consecutive

JHS Family Limited Partnership v. County of Fresno CA5

California Court of Appeal · Nov 15, 2024

Manjit Dhaliwal was designated by County as its person most qualified to testify on the tax sale process and the tax sale of the subject property. … The County is not immune from liability for breach of contract. [Citation.] Because this obligation was in addition to the standard terms and conditions of a tax sale, it falls outside the tax sale immunities.

People v. Wilson

California Court of Appeal · Dec 17, 2019

Like the defendant in Weeks, Wilson clearly expressed he would rather represent himself than continue being represented by his counsel. … The general rule may be that pleas, even negotiated ones, are not immune from changes in the law.