Case law

St. Mary v. Superior Court

223 Cal. App. 4th 762 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 31, 2014

The responding party shall admit as much of the request that is true, “either as expressed in the request itself or as reasonably and clearly qualified by the responding party” (id., subd. … Clearly, such a declaration would have been required for a motion to compel further responses. (§ 2033.290, subd.

Alexandrou v. Alexander

37 Cal. App. 3d 306 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 15, 1974

Thus, the surety is required to bear the consequences of the administratrix’ fraud and has no immunity not accorded to the administratrix. We have discussed the merits of St. … Clearly, the' judgment was consistent with applicable law. In Austin v. Wilcoxson, 149 Cal. 24 [ 84 P. 417 ], the cause of action alleged a trust.

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].”

In Re Kristin H.

46 Cal. App. 4th 1635 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 1, 1996

"minimum standards of experience and education necessary to qualify as competent counsel" (§ 317.6, subd. … The parent must also establish that the claimed error was prejudicial.

People v. Kim CA2/4

California Court of Appeal · May 17, 2016

Rather, defense counsel argued that defendant was not involved in the attack at all, an argument the jury clearly rejected when it convicted appellant of felony battery. … The rejection establishes nothing more than that the jury was not convinced of the weapon identification.

People v. Rice

10 Cal. App. 3d 730 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 8, 1970

Runaways clearly come within section-601, Welfare and Institutions Code. Courts do not exist in a vacuum. … Presumably, the defense intended to establish that all contraband in the house was under the dominion and control of Stanton.

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.

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.

The People v. Fong

217 Cal. App. 4th 263 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 18, 2013

He argues that his admission of a section 12022.7 enhancement allegation associated with his 2009 felony offense did not bring him within the provisions of section 667.5, subdivision (c)(8), which would qualify him for application … Stockton Theatres, Inc. (1948) 32 Cal.2d 53 (Palermo). “ ‘It is a well established principle of statutory law that, where a statute adopts 3 by specific reference the provisions

Belle Terre Ranch, Inc. v. Wilson

232 Cal. App. 4th 1468 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 13, 2015

In fact, the Wilsons made no objection when the court qualified Brunner as an expert. … There was clearly substantial evidence to support Brunner’s conclusions, including the supporting expert testimony of Crabtree.

The People v. Cuevas

California Court of Appeal · Aug 15, 2013

the majority concluded the police officer lacked the necessary medical training to testify about the efficacy of the blood draw, and ―although performed at a medical facility, was by an unidentified individual who was not clearly … Esayian (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 1031, 1035, 1037–1041 [drawing of arrestee‘s blood by phlebotomist who was not fully qualified to draw blood under state law for purposes 5 of

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

Cleveland Nat. Forest v. San Diego Assn. of Gov.

California Court of Appeal · Nov 24, 2014

"In interpreting CEQA, we accord the Guidelines great weight except where they are clearly unauthorized or erroneous." (Neighbors for Smart Rail v. … S-3-05, signed in 2005 by then Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (Executive Order), does not unilaterally qualify as a threshold of significance.

People v. Abes

174 Cal. App. 3d 796 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 21, 1985

the court said the smell of ether alone could not supply probable cause for arrest because it has so many legitimate uses its odor is as consistent with lawful as with criminal activity, there is here “further evidence establishing … [Citation.] *807 Once she had been arrested the search, incident to that arrest, which produced the drugs and money was clearly justified. [Citations.]

Escalante v. City of Hermosa Beach

195 Cal. App. 3d 1009 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 28, 1987

Any type of ink or other substance that will clearly show the voter’s choice may be used in or in conjunction with the marking device. … The trial court’s findings clearly show that neither occurred here.

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.”

Aptos Council v. County of Santa Cruz

10 Cal. App. 5th 266 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 30, 2017

“In interpreting CEQA, we accord the CEQA Guidelines great weight except where they are clearly unauthorized or erroneous.” (Muzzy Ranch Co. v. Solano County Airport Land Use Comn. (2007) 41 Cal.4th 372, 380, fn. 2.) … (c).) “ ‘Relevant personal observations of area residents on nontechnical subjects may qualify as substantial evidence.’ ” (Keep Our Mountains Quiet v. County of Santa Clara (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 714, 730.)

Save Lafayette v. City of Lafayette

California Court of Appeal · Dec 16, 2022

In the HAA, our Legislature has established limited exceptions to these general rules. … Indeed, the default rule is that unless the Legislature clearly expresses a contrary intent, an agency does not lose jurisdiction to act even after a statutory deadline passes.

People v. Ashford

265 Cal. App. 2d 673 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 16, 1968

A defendant’s reiterated denial of guilt and the principal facts that purportedly establish it does not justify the prosecution’s introduction of new evidence to establish that which defendant would clearly have denied from … Reflection indicates that all evidence tending to establish guilt is prejudicial to the defendant’s plea of innocence.

People v. Townsend Street Gang CA4/3

California Court of Appeal · Jul 14, 2022

Granting gangs such immunity would clearly undermine the Legislature’s goal of deterring criminal gang activity. … They were not intended to replace the well-established rules respecting when an unincorporated association may be sued under Code of Civil Procedure section 369.5.