Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
1.22s
131 Cal. Rptr. 2d 801 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 11, 2003
The inclusion of the qualifier "willfully" was not inadvertent. … [Citation.] [¶] . . . [¶] "The Legislature obviously believes it is of great importance that those who have committed qualifying sex offenses be readily available for police surveillance. [Citation.]
Cited 2 timesPublished20 Cal. App. 2d 198 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 3, 1937
A restatement of the facts are not necessary to establish the foregoing statement. … The foregoing facts and the authorities cited we think show clearly the right of the plaintiffs to maintain this action and prosecute the same to final conclusion.
Cited 11 timesPublished81 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.
Cited 7 timesPublishedCalifornia 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.
Cited 0 timesPublishedCalifornia Court of Appeal · Jul 5, 2016
; and that a doctor’s office is not a “commercial establishment.” … Section 1170.18 clearly states that a defendant must show he was convicted of a felony but would have been convicted of a misdemeanor if Proposition 47 had been in effect at the time of the offense.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedValiyee v. Department of Motor Vehicles
88 Cal. Rptr. 2d 508 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 2, 1999
On this record, the trial court’s finding of a violation of section 11713(m) is clearly based on substantial evidence. … This, he claims, establishes an abuse of discretion. We disagree.
Cited 11 timesPublished126 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.
Cited 7 timesPublished126 Cal. Rptr. 2d 124 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 15, 2002
effect of these standards: “(b) Establishment of other standards “(1) In general “The Secretary shall establish by regulation other standards (not described in subsection (a) [establishing ‘solvency standards for provider-sponsored … Davidowitz, supra, 312 U.S. at p. 67 [ 61 S.Ct. at p. 404 ] [the federal agency to which Congress has delegated its authority to implement the provisions of the federal act is “uniquely qualified to determine whether a particular
Cited 19 timesPublished125 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.”
Overruled on other grounds by People v. Superior Court (Mendella), 33 Cal. 3d 754 (1983)Cited 9 timesPublishedCalifornia Court of Appeal · Jul 20, 2015
Before the court qualified her as an expert, both the prosecutor and counsel for defendant Valadez questioned her concerning her training and experience. … Defendant Rivas does not state clearly how this testimony was prejudicial to him.
Cited 0 timesPublishedAlameda County Social Services Agency v. Kimberly H.
112 Cal. App. 4th 251 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 26, 2003
That statutory exception clearly applies to dependency proceedings. … Instead, such a finding qualifies the parent to receive custody.
Cited 1 timesPublished169 Cal. App. 4th 1293 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 7, 2009
records of the Bath and Body Works business or some other qualified witness. … the sort commonly handed to customers at check-out points in large retail establishments ... is such common knowledge that virtually anybody who has ever purchased anything in a store is ‘qualified’ . . . .”
Cited 69 timesPublishedSukut Construction, Inc. v. Rimrock CA
199 Cal. App. 4th 817 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 30, 2011
But if ‘the text alone does not establish the Legislature’s intent clearly, we must turn to other sources for insight ....’” (In re Corrine W., at p. 529.) … We note that the claimant bears the threshold burden of establishing the lien. (Accord, Hayward Lumber etc. Co. v.
Cited 3 timesPublishedCitizens for Environmental Responsibility v. State Ex Rel. 14th District Agricultural Ass'n
242 Cal. App. 4th 555 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 23, 2015
The Wollmer court rejected the argument, agreeing with the trial court that the city did not mitigate the project into qualifying for a categorical exemption. … Nor does this evidence establish a “significant” environmental effect.
Cited 21 timesPublishedTurner v. Pacifica Foundation CA2/7
California Court of Appeal · Feb 14, 2023
The Turner parties argued the allegations in paragraph 12 of the pleading established they had satisfied the demand requirement. … of Los Angeles (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1074, 1081.) 10 A demurrer based on an affirmative defense is properly sustained when the face of the complaint and matters judicially noticed clearly
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedAll One God Faith, Inc. v. Organic & Sustainable Industry Standards, Inc.
183 Cal. App. 4th 1186 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 13, 2010
In any event, the formulation of the standard is clearly speech on an issue of public interest, protected under the first prong of section 425.16. … A conclusion that OASIS’s role in the certification process is protected under the anti-SLAPP statute would not immunize OASIS from liability for any false or misleading aspects of its certification mark. (See Kasky v.
Cited 22 timesPublishedKistler v. Redwoods Community College District
15 Cal. App. 4th 1326 · California Court of Appeal · May 18, 1993
“It is established that vacation pay is not a gratuity or a gift, but is, in effect, additional wages for services performed. [Citations.] … State University & Colleges (1984) 160 Cal.App.3d 357, 367-368 [ 206 Cal.Rptr. 595 ], which suggested any administrative decision might qualify for attorney fees on appeal under section 800.
Cited 15 timesPublishedCalifornia Court of Appeal · Apr 15, 2021
his remedies until that fact was established to his satisfaction. … DISCUSSION Appellant concedes that evidence supports the court’s finding that he does not qualify as a presumed father under Kelsey S.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedFriars Village Homeowners Assn. v. Hansing CA4/1
220 Cal. App. 4th 405 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 20, 2013
Hansing also contends the relationship rule violates the provisions of section 1357.100 et seq., which establish standards for operating rules for associations. … This right of self-nomination impliedly applies to a "qualified" candidate.
Cited 6 timesUnpublishedDept. of Water Resources v. Metropolitan Water Dist. etc.
California Court of Appeal · Dec 31, 2025
As a result, appellants must show that the Delta Program qualifies as a “further modification” to the existing Feather River Project unit. … It follows that, to support validation, DWR must show the Delta Program qualifies as a “further modification” to that unit.
Cited 0 timesPublished
Ask Donna