Case law

People v. Alpine

81 Cal. App. 456 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 23, 1927

Appellant clearly was entitled to show the matters sought to be elicited by the questions as a part of the evidence under his plea of self-defense. … It was objected as to each of them that he was not shown to be qualified by the questions put to him by appellant’s counsel, and the objection was sustained in each instance.

Sea-Land Service, Inc. v. Matson Terminal Co.

253 Cal. App. 2d 885 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 25, 1967

This doctrine was later qualified by Weyerhaeuser S. S. Co. v. … There was. therefore, no basis for the court to so instruct the jury, and it was error to do so for it placed upon the shipowner a burden and responsibility that was not established by the contract, and which it is conceded

Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'n v. Lamb Finance Co.

145 Cal. App. 2d 702 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 9, 1956

cause remanded for a new trial of part of the issues, these interlocutory rulings are, of course, set aside and the parties restored to the position in which they found themselves at the outset of the proceedings, except as qualified … Poyet, the order striking her eleventh affirmative defense was clearly erroneous. That defense is essentially a counterclaim on the part of Mrs.

Leining v. Foster Poultry Farms

California Court of Appeal · Feb 23, 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

People v. Abbate

California Court of Appeal · Dec 3, 2020

We thus proceed by first examining whether section 182.5 clearly proscribes defendant’s conduct. … activity,” and the court could “perceive no reason why one who actively and knowingly works in the ranks of that organization, intending to contribute to the success of those specifically illegal activities, should be any more immune

People v. Hernandez

116 Cal. Rptr. 2d 379 · California Court of Appeal · May 15, 2002

has been long established as an integral part of double jeopardy jurisprudence. … "The extensive hearing in which the juror steadfastly maintained that she could not follow the court's instructions, that she had been upset throughout the trial and that she wanted to be excused, clearly justified a conclusion

Estate of Gonzalez

126 Cal. Rptr. 2d 332 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 27, 2002

Nevertheless, ‘it is the testator’s intentions that control, and a court “must not rewrite the [testator’s] will in such a way as to immunize legal proceedings plainly intended to frustrate [the testator’s] unequivocally … Offering a clearly sham will for probate is not what was meant or excused by Probate Code section 8252. Jorge next argues that he had “reasonable cause” to offer the 1998 will for probate.

Estate of Adams

132 Cal. App. 2d 190 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 11, 1955

Unless the presumption has been clearly rebutted, it alone will support a finding of community character. (Blank v. Coffin, 20 Cal.2d 457 [ 126 P.2d 868 ].) … Although Reardon made some concessions as to the accuracy of the tracing of the bank transactions by appellant’s accountant, such concessions were qualified.

Jou Chau v. Starbucks Corp.

174 Cal. App. 4th 688 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 2, 2009

Clearly, the tips were left for someone. … Whether one presents specific evidence on the issue, considers a dictionary definition, references case law authority, or applies established social mores, it is well established tips are given in return for service.

Boaz v. Boyle & Co.

40 Cal. App. 4th 700 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 21, 1995

The Gulf Oil factors clearly point in that direction. … Those restrictions are more than a guarantee of immunity from inconvenient or distant litigation. They are a consequence of territorial limitations on the power of the respective States.” (Hanson v.

People v. Tapia

29 Cal. Rptr. 3d 158 · California Court of Appeal · May 31, 2005

Rodriguez (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1, 11 [ 82 Cal.Rptr.2d 413 , 971 P.2d 618 ]), the evidence relevant to the issues on appeal established the following. … Under the facts presented here, the sidewalk was clearly neither a place of business nor a place of residence.

Colburn v. Northern Trust Co.

59 Cal. Rptr. 3d 828 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 4, 2007

“[E]ven though a no contest clause is strictly construed to avoid forfeiture, it is the testator’s intentions that control, and a court ‘must not rewrite the [trust] in such a way as to immunize legal proceedings plainly … A no contest clause may result in a “forced election” where a beneficiary is obligated to choose between two inconsistent or alternative rights or claims because the testator or trustor clearly intended that the beneficiary

Carpenter v. City of Santa Monica

63 Cal. App. 2d 772 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 17, 1944

The experts for respondents were amply qualified to give their opinions on this subject. … No one cited or discussed the rules established by. the many eases above referred to.

People v. Lee

California Court of Appeal · Oct 31, 2017

“Because the statute setting forth defendant’s substantive offense does not prescribe a state prison sentence whenever the additional factual allegation (here in the form of a separate punishment enhancement) has been established … Thus, the Legislature clearly recognized the effect of sentencing 10 “[T]he ‘current conviction’ must be a felony to trigger application of the three strikes law.”

Reis v. Biggs Unified School District

24 Cal. Rptr. 3d 393 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 9, 2005

And even putting aside section 44910, section 44929.21, subdivision (b), requires the qualifying probationary service to have been consecutive, which is not the case under this approach. 3. … Code, § 800] simply because the administrative entity or official’s action was erroneous, even if it was “clearly erroneous.” ’ ” (American President Lines, Ltd. v.

Pacific Bal Industries v. Northern Timber, Inc.

118 Cal. App. 2d 815 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 1, 1953

Odom, 72 Cal.App.2d 72 [ 164 P.2d 68 ], the appellant claimed that the trial court committed error in permitting a certain witness to give his opinion (apparently, for neglecting to qualify the witness) but the reviewing … court refused to consider this point “for the reason that the law is established in California that an objection to the introduction of evidence may not be made for the first time on appeal.

People v. Superior Court (Dominguez)

California Court of Appeal · Oct 17, 2018

In reaching that conclusion, Uribe "reject[ed] any suggestion that the SART exam . . . was not investigative" since (1) it was "clearly spearheaded by the police"; (2) "[a] major purpose of the examination was to determine … He cites the fact that both ESR and NicheVision have objected to his subpoena duces tecum, ostensibly on grounds of jurisdictional immunity.

People v. Jackson CA1/4

California Court of Appeal · Jun 21, 2016

Not only was this evidence relevant to impeach appellant’s testimony, it represented a relatively minor portion of the vast array of evidence that was introduced to establish that appellant met the criteria for qualifying … Padilla’s testimony in another case, which was clearly hearsay.

Miller v. Stouffer

9 Cal. App. 4th 70 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 31, 1992

It is established “ ‘that where the servant is combining his own business with that of his master, or attending to both at substantially the same time, no nice inquiry will be made as to which business the servant was actually … Proposition 51, a manufacturer with a comparative fault of only 40 percent was liable for 85 percent of a plaintiff’s noneconomic damages, including the 45 percent attributable to the negligent employer which was statutorily immune

People v. Redman

125 Cal. App. 3d 317 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 5, 1981

After having been granted immunity from prosecution, Vickie Williford, who had been a passenger in the Monte Carlo during the robbery, testified at the preliminary hearing. … The testimony of Williford and Sturm establishes that Overstreet was the driver of the car, that he wore a football jersey, and that his hair was “natural.”