Case law

Coulter v. Board of Education

40 Cal. App. 3d 445 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 15, 1974

The intent of the Legislature that questions as to validity of contracts by the governing board of a school district be exclusively determined by provisions of the Education Code have been expressed clearly. … As respondent states, several factual matters might reasonably be conceived for the Legislature’s classification—e.g., the Legislature has provided special privileges, immunities, responsibilities and procedures regarding

Westfield-Palos Verdes Co. v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes

73 Cal. App. 3d 486 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 20, 1977

We cannot endorse such a strained reading of the ordinance, whose manifest intent is clearly to tax ongoing construction either at the time of the issuance of the building permit or certificate of occupancy, or in the interim … There, it was reiterated that if facts reasonably can be conceived to sustain the ordinance, their existence is presumed and the burden of establishing arbitrary action rests upon the one assailing the classification.

Biechner v. Lynch

18 Cal. App. 3d 940 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 26, 1971

Also, although the word “trust’ ’is not expressly stated, creation of a trust without a specifically named trustee is clearly implied. A trustor need not use the word “trust” or “trustee.” … Except for their race they were qualified. Because they were Negroes they were denied admission. They petitioned the court urging that the trustee had thereby violated the Fourteenth Amendment.

Mintz v. Rowitz

13 Cal. App. 3d 216 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 2, 1970

This was clearly perceived by the trial court. … To be sure the gift to them is qualified by the phrase: “Should my wife, Bessie Mintz, and I die together in a common accident then. . . .”

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.

Porter v. Superior Court

73 Cal. App. 3d 793 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 30, 1977

Such action is clearly equitable in its nature and is not triable by jury. [Citations.]” (Clyne v. Brock, supra, 82 Cal.App.2d at p. 961 .) 3 The husband’s complaint contains three causes of action. … It is generally qualified by the reality, recognized in Kirsch v.

People v. Guess

59 Cal. Rptr. 3d 80 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 24, 2007

Emily refused to testify at trial, even under a grant of use immunity. Dra.'s First Interview Dra. was a runaway from her mother and from juvenile hall in Sacramento. … of a prior conviction.'" ( Ibid. ) More recently, the California Supreme Court has held that the fact of a prior conviction allows a sentencing court to examine records of other courts to determine if a felony conviction qualifies

Madrid v. Dept. of Motor Vehicles CA4/2

California Court of Appeal · Nov 15, 2013

In that case, Petricka argued that “the DMV had failed to establish evidence that the blood sample was properly collected, handled and preserved by a qualified person, as required by law. … “The DMV countered that the Evidence Code presumption established that the blood was properly collected by a qualified person, and that it was incumbent upon Petricka to overcome the presumption.

Quilala v. Securitas Security Services USA

California Court of Appeal · Dec 16, 2025

To prevail on a harassment claim, an employee must show the harassment was “ ‘severe enough or sufficiently pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and create a work environment that qualifies as hostile or abusive … Measured against these standards, Quilala’s allegations are clearly sufficient to state a claim for sexual harassment.

Beverly Hills National Bank v. Glynn

16 Cal. App. 3d 274 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 26, 1971

The error in this conclusion is clearly and convincingly exposed by the decision in Beverly Hills Nat. Bank v. Glynn, supra, at pages 867-868. … In other words, the reversal of the portion of the judgment which dealt with the third and fourth causes of action does not operate to immunize those causes of action from the effect of the final adjudication of the issues

Edlund v. Hales

66 Cal. App. 4th 1454 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 30, 1998

There is no doubt that [Edlund] is imminently [szc] qualified to take care of Natalie in the same way she has in the past. … Perlmutter clearly found that it would not be appropriate to change the parties’ custody arrangement such that Hales would become the primary custodial parent.

In Re Cheryl H.

153 Cal. App. 3d 1098 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 30, 1984

H. as the one who abused her clearly were hearsay if offered to prove that Mr. H. was the one who molested Cheryl. … Powell could not qualify as "spontaneous exclamations."

People v. Alberto R.

235 Cal. App. 3d 1309 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 7, 1991

Although a person may not generally successfully challenge a statute for vagueness if his conduct is clearly covered by the statute (Bowland v. … When it is read in context with the other words in the enhancement subdivision, it becomes clear the Legislature intended “benefits” to be interpreted by the qualifying language of the statute, thereby limiting the scope

California Teachers' Ass'n v. Parlier Unified School District

157 Cal. App. 3d 174 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 14, 1984

There is no minimum duration for an absence to qualify as sick leave. … Government Code sections 3540-3549.3 establish a system of collective bargaining for school district employees.

People v. Stanley CA4/2

California Court of Appeal · Apr 30, 2026

The objection below was clearly non-specific. 7 D. … At a minimum, the evidence established that defendant aided and abetted the murder with the intent to kill, which is a valid theory under current law. (Zavala, supra, 105 Cal.App.5th at p. 372; People v.

Alliance San Diego v. California Taxpayers Action Network

California Court of Appeal · Oct 3, 2025

and R-313487, we conclude that their plain language cannot reasonably be interpreted as obligating the City to make payments on the Measure C bonds out of its general funds or any funds other than the special tax funds established … Measure C bonds would be general obligation bonds of the City instead of special fund or limited obligation bonds.8 Because Measure C (i.e., section 35.0210(g) proposed therein) and resolutions R-313486 and R-313487 clearly

Wilner v. Sunset Life Insurance

93 Cal. Rptr. 2d 413 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 30, 2000

A pattern of misleading oral representations, made by the defendant’s agents, may qualify as an unfair business practice. (People v. Dollar Rent-A-Car Systems, Inc. (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 119, 129 [ 259 Cal.Rptr. 191 ].) … These allegations clearly describe immoral, unethical and unscrupulous conduct, i.e., unfair business practices. (§ 17200; State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Superior Court, supra, 45 Cal.App.4th at p. 1104 .)

Coast Plaza Doctors Hospital v. Blue Cross of California

173 Cal. App. 4th 1149 · California Court of Appeal · May 11, 2009

Because Patient X’s group health plan qualified as an employee benefit plan subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA; 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq.), the trial court sustained Blue Cross’s demurrer … concluded that the deemer clause applied without considering whether the plans were self-funded, we note that neither the district court nor the Ninth Circuit had the benefit of the Supreme Court’s decision in FMC which clearly

People v. Machel

234 Cal. App. 2d 37 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 29, 1965

that he had waived these rights. ’ ’ The record clearly establishes that when defendant made the above statements, Martin’s questioning was no longer investigatory but had focused on defendant as a particular suspect. … The statements admitted were clearly incriminating in character.

Estate of Woehr

166 Cal. App. 2d 4 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 10, 1958

which the court observed that absent the authority of correction by the trial court of a jury's verdict, "refractory jurors would be able to compel a new trial and thus defeat the exercise by the court of a power which it clearly … explained the general meaning of the term "undue influence" and the exception thereto which occurs when there is a confidential relationship coupled with activity and undue profiting. [34] Appellants complain of the use of the qualifying