Case law

First National Bank v. Pomona Tile Manufacturing Co.

82 Cal. App. 2d 592 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 25, 1917

In the third place, we do not think the board qualifies under the rule of priority it urges, since we do not regard it as a bona fide purchaser. … It clearly appears from these older decisions such as Twelves v. Williams (1838), 3 Whart. (Pa.) 485 [31 Am.Dec. 542, 543-545], and Van Heusen v.

Taduran v. James R. Glidewell, Dental Ceramics

California Court of Appeal · Jun 17, 2026

Based on these circumstances, the trial court concluded “a penalty of $100,165 is appropriate and that any penalty beyond this amount qualifies as ‘unjust, arbitrary[, and] oppressive.’” … The court applied a discretionary reduction because it concluded Glidewell’s method of calculation of rest period wages for piece-rate employees was established and applied in good faith.

Huntingdon Life Sciences, Inc. v. Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty USA, Inc.

29 Cal. Rptr. 3d 521 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 1, 2005

To qualify as a true threat, a communication need not specify who would carry out the threat. … The statute “created a federal immunity to any cause of action that would make interactive service providers liable for information originating with a third party user of the service.”

Curtis v. QRS Neon Corp. Ltd.

147 Cal. App. 2d 186 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 26, 1956

The court read subdivision (f), which qualified the effect of subdivision (a). There was no error in reading subdivision (a) of section 694. … continuous operation. ‘ ‘ (e) The State Department of Public Works or local authority is authorized to issue or withhold such permits at its discretion; or, if such permit is issued, to limit the number of trips, or to establish

People v. Dominick

182 Cal. App. 3d 1174 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 30, 1986

The testimony of Dominick’s sister and her boyfriend clearly established that Shedelbower departed with Dominick for the ITT facility remotely located on the mountaintop. … Her description of the clothing of the three men when coupled with the identifications of Dominick and Romero and the testimony of Dominick’s sister and her boyfriend, clearly established that Shedelbower was the third man

Principal Life Insurance v. Peterson

156 Cal. App. 4th 676 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 31, 2007

First, the drafters’ comment to Uniform Rule 63(20) contains no hint that a judgment on appeal would not qualify for admission. … These assumptions are clearly sound when the criminal charge was a felony.” (6 Cal. Law Revision Com. Rep., supra, appen., at p. 540.)

Elysian Heights Residents Ass'n v. City of Los Angeles

182 Cal. App. 3d 21 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 6, 1986

Clearly, similar reasoning is applicable to building permits which conflict with general plans. … At most, therefore, the lawful issuance of a permit by the bureau can confer a conditional immunity, hardly the kind of shield contemplated by a statute designed to fix the rights of a permittee upon a certain date.”

Corporation of America v. Harris

5 Cal. App. 2d 452 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 22, 1935

The court added, however, but not necessarily in qualification of the rule, that it should be established that the making of such contract was within the scope of the officer’s authority. … Four days later it qualified to do business in California.

Kwok v. Transnation Title Insurance Company

170 Cal. App. 4th 1562 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 10, 2009

Appellants would qualify as distributees under Corporations Code section 17001, subdivision (j) only in their individual capacities. … A transfer of property by gift is clearly a voluntary act that does not arise automatically upon death or dissolution.

Ciraulo v. City of Newport Beach

54 Cal. Rptr. 3d 515 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 17, 2007

In any event, we would not agree the court's rather lengthy order denying the mandate petition was insufficient to qualify as a statement of decision. … But that case is clearly distinguishable from this one. In Anderson, the homeowner was entirely innocent, and built her home in accordance with the permit issued by the City.

Marriage of Rush CA3

California Court of Appeal · Jun 20, 2014

Tise, supra, 234 F.3d at p. 421; In re Gendreau (9th Cir. 1997) 122 F.3d 815, 818 [right to QDRO established under state law at time of divorce decree].) … Here, the DRO was clearly intended by David and Virginia, and by the family court in 1995, to effectively transfer the entire community 10 share of the disputed property to

Alvarez v. Altamed Health Services Corporation

California Court of Appeal · Feb 4, 2021

Altamed contends the court’s ruling is clearly erroneous on this issue. We agree. … “The general principles of unconscionability are well established.

Kurtin v. Elieff

California Court of Appeal · May 8, 2013

It is well established that the scope of an arbitrator‟s powers are fixed by the agreement to arbitrate. (E.g., Moncharsh v. … To be sure (as shown by sentences one, two and six), the parties clearly wanted their mediated agreement to be enforceable.

People v. Nelson

224 Cal. App. 2d 238 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 22, 1964

McKay’s answer is not directly responsive (“Well, to explain that, we told him generally, ...”) indicates some attempt to qualify the response and clearly has no reference to a specific point of time on July 10th. … While the prosecutor’s insinuation of tampering with a witness was clearly improper, defendant may not now complain.

White v. Davis

103 Cal. App. 531 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 29, 1930

The act of 1923 established a different test than distance for lights upon motor vehicles. … We think this contention is correct, but it does not clearly appear that both the bank and the individuals can be held liable under the evidence.

In re Dominic H. CA2/7

California Court of Appeal · Jul 16, 2025

In each instance, we defer to the court’s oral ruling, which is clearly reflected in the reporter’s transcript. (See In re A.C. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 796, 800.) … Bernardino does not qualify as a presumed father under section 7611.

People v. Thomas C.

183 Cal. App. 3d 786 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 23, 1986

Leveaux answered that minor might not have been thinking clearly about the future implications of his behavior. Leveaux thought, however, that minor’s “impulsivity [indicated] a lack of regard for consequences . . . . … Since minor does not qualify for the limited exception set forth in In re Joseph G., the current law in California provides that, like the defendant in Matlock, he is liable for murder.

Brennon B. v. Super. Ct.

California Court of Appeal · Nov 13, 2020

The court thus concluded “[t]he club certainly qualifies as a ‘place of amusement.’ … City of Rancho Mirage (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 162, 175 [city not a business establishment in amending municipal code to increase age of person “responsible” for short-term rental]; Qualified Patients Assn. v.

People v. Bradley

75 Cal. Rptr. 2d 244 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 11, 1998

This language clearly prescribes that terms of enhancement, including the five-year enhancement under section 667(a), be imposed in addition to the indeterminate term. … McVickers (1992) 4 Cal.4th 81, 84-90 , 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 850 , 840 P.2d 955 [retroactive requirement that sex offender undergo testing for acquired immune deficiency disease not an ex post facto violation]; Tapia v.

Rose v. County of San Benito

California Court of Appeal · Apr 19, 2022

Thus, here the board’s adoption of a “vesting schedule” refers to the point at which an employee becomes qualified to receive a benefit; it does not, without more, indicate a legislative intent to confer a nonmodifiable “ … In its ruling, the trial court concluded that “the circumstances shown by the evidence clearly establish[] that the County did enter into an implied contract with its employees promising, in exchange for working during their