Case law

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.

People v. Jurado CA2/6

California Court of Appeal · Oct 7, 2014

The standard for deciding whether to strike a prior is well established. … [Jurado's] arrest in the instant matter clearly indicates that he poses a continuing threat to the community."

Calkins v. Calkins

63 Cal. App. 292 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 28, 1923

S.) 658, 75 Atl. 568 ], wherein it was said: “The law never contemplated that persons engaged in business as partners may incorporate with intent to obtain the advantages and immunities of a corporate form, and then, Proteus … Here the constructive trust which appellant endeavors to have established is based on fraud as the substantive cause of action.”

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

Myron v. Cervantez CA5

California Court of Appeal · Jul 25, 2014

remaining six litigations, however, clearly constituted qualifying litigations that were finally resolved against appellant. … The requisites for this form of relief were clearly established here, as respondent’s motion requested that the trial court enter a prefiling order and the foundational finding was properly made by the trial court that appellant

Post Foods, LLC v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal · Jul 16, 2018

Currently, not enough is known about acrylamide formation to identify safe, effective, and practical modifications to food processing techniques that will clearly prevent or reduce formation. … Sowinski is correct that 10 of Petitioners’ breakfast cereals do not contain whole grains, but each of these cereals carries another ingredient that qualifies it for a health claim.

In Re SB

30 Cal. Rptr. 3d 726 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 28, 2005

Among the stated purposes of the ICWA are "to protect the best interests of Indian children and to promote the stability and security of Indian tribes and families by the establishment of minimum Federal standards for the … Most provisions of the ICWA clearly are not intended to apply to such emergency removals or placements.

People v. Hines

California Court of Appeal · Dec 14, 2020

To be clear, we don’t treat as dispositive the psychiatrist’s comment that he wasn’t “qualified” to make the final call on competency, nor treat it as an admission he wasn’t a “qualified mental health expert.” … While the testimony of the Matrix employees broadly supported Hines’s testimony that he hadn’t threatened K.H., their testimony was weak because they contradicted each other except on the one point that was most clearly

People v. Valdez

10 Cal. App. 5th 1338 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 20, 2017

As the possession was ongoing, and defendant . . . most of the time was present in the cell and so near to the weapon as to have it available to him offensively or defensively during the times of his possession, he clearly … That qualifies [the] defendant as being ‘armed.’

Gray v. O'Banion

23 Cal. App. 468 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 12, 1913

Whether one Katie Logan, who voted at said election and cast her ballot for the plaintiff, was a qualified voter within the contemplation of that portion of section 1 of article II of the constitution which prescribes an … This is particularly true as to the ballots, “Barry,” 5 and 6, which counsel for the defendant with special emphasis insist should not have been counted, the objection to “Barry 5,” being based upon what clearly appears to

People v. Swearingen

84 Cal. App. 3d 570 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 5, 1978

Rptr. 9 , 527 P.2d 361 ], testimony establishing probable cause to search was inadmissible. … (m)), the judgment should clearly be affirmed under the harmless error doctrine.

People v. Ceja

131 Cal. Rptr. 2d 601 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 7, 2003

The mother testified that the son clearly, back then, knew right from wrong and appreciate the nature and quality of his acts. … The proper rule of law was *1091 early established in People v.

Taormina Theosophical Community, Inc. v. Silver

140 Cal. App. 3d 964 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 17, 1983

Facts Taormina is a nonprofit California corporation organized for the purpose of establishing a retirement community for Theosophists and certain other qualified persons. … The procedure established in the provision must be followed for the modification to be binding.

Zinderman v. City of Los Angeles CA2/2

California Court of Appeal · Aug 30, 2024

“[A]buse of discretion is established if the court determines that the findings are not supported by substantial evidence in the light of the whole record.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5, subd. (c); id., subd. (b).) … The message that SB 375 clearly sends to public agencies, developers, and other stakeholders is that dense, transit-oriented, and mixed-use development is a critical goal for GhG emissions reduction and the collective good

People v. Davis

226 Cal. App. 4th 1353 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 12, 2014

(b).) 12 urgency and a denial order qualifies as an ‘order made after judgment, affecting the substantial rights of the party.’ ” (Id. at p. 886-887.) … Rather, this petition is clearly limited to the October 1, 2012, order filed in this specific case.

King v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

60 Cal. Rptr. 3d 359 · California Court of Appeal · May 23, 2007

At trial, he would have the burden of proving that he suffered from a disability within the meaning of the statute, he was otherwise qualified for his job, he suffered an adverse employment action, and that he was terminated … But he fails to clearly identify the culprits.

People v. Gamez

235 Cal. App. 3d 957 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 30, 1991

We need not repeat the evidence that established Southside as an entity; that evidence was abundant. … However, the officer was not qualified to give an expert opinion, and therefore his testimony was governed by the more restrictive rule under Evidence Code section 702 regulating the testimony of a lay witness, requiring

Serrano v. Aerotek, Inc.

California Court of Appeal · Mar 23, 2018

The standard for reviewing a grant of summary judgment is well-established. … Serrano does not seriously argue otherwise, making only the conclusory assertion that “Noe clearly imposes liability on Aerotek for Bay Bread’s meal period violation[s].”

Clark v. Claremont University Center & Graduate School

6 Cal. App. 4th 639 · California Court of Appeal · May 13, 1992

To accomplish this, the [employer] must clearly set forth, through the introduction of admissible evidence, the reasons for the [employee’s] rejection. … Usually a candidate is not qualified to apply for tenure until the sixth year of service, which means the position may not be filled immediately.

Zajac v. Liau CA2/4

California Court of Appeal · Oct 3, 2025

Zajac argued that summary judgment must be denied because “Defendants clearly and undisputedly failed to properly treat Plaintiff after the initial injury while he was still within Defendants’ care and custody.” … The court then stated, “Defendants have established there is no triable issue as to whether Dr. Liau caused Plaintiff’s harm, and Plaintiff has failed to provide competent evidence to establish that Dr.