Case law

Nelson v. Gaunt

125 Cal. App. 3d 623 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 13, 1981

Gaunt] is, in truth and in fact, a pauper, and if he qualifies for some type of legal aid, then he should bring every effort to seek the same, even at this late date. … While we cannot condone the behavior of Nelson's counsel, we also cannot ignore the established rules of procedure.

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.

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

Cynthia W. v. Joseph K.

226 Cal. App. 3d 655 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 24, 1990

The A.B.M. court reasoned that Congress clearly excepted just two child custody proceedings from the Act—divorce proceedings and juvenile delinquency actions. … States Code Services, section 1912(f) provides: “No termination of parental rights may be ordered in such proceeding in the absence of a determination, supported by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, including testimony of qualified

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.)

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.

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

Minnick v. Automotive Creations, Inc.

California Court of Appeal · Jul 28, 2017

Minnick alternatively contends Owen is not controlling because defendants' vacation policy did not clearly provide for a waiting period. … The deponent's additional references to gifts and accruals cannot be reasonably read to establish a contrary rule.

Mondragon v. Sunrun Inc.

California Court of Appeal · Apr 23, 2024

Ultimately, however, the Ajamian court declined to “decide whether an unqualified incantation of AAA rules” would “establish a clear and unmistakable delegation” and held there was no clear delegation because the agreement … “a qualifying provision . . . at least arguably covers the . . . dispute.”

Southern California Telephone Co. v. County of Los Angeles

45 Cal. App. 2d 111 · California Court of Appeal · May 28, 1941

proportionately higher than assessments of other property of the same class or classes; that said assessment discriminates against plaintiff, and that it is “ con *114 trary to, and in violation of the rights, privileges and immunities … Madden, 214 Cal. 251 -267-268 [ 5 Pac. (2d) 4 ], it is said: “Fraud being a term which imputes venality and corruption to the person charged, should be clearly proved and satisfactorily established, especially where the persons

Wilson & Wilson v. City Council

191 Cal. App. 4th 1559 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 25, 2011

Validation Actions Are Not Immune From Mootness Citing Woodward Park Homeowners Assn. v. Garreks, Inc. (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 880 [ 92 Cal.Rptr.2d 268 ] (Woodward Park) and Neilson v. … Clearly, the Woodward Park court was concerned about the public policy effects of finding the appeal moot on the facts before it.

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. 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.

People v. Amons

125 Cal. App. 4th 855 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 11, 2005

Lane, supra, 489 U.S. 288, 311 , for “ ‘ “watershed rules of criminal procedure” implicating the fundamental fairness and accuracy of the criminal proceeding’ ... is clearly meant to apply only to a small core of rules requiring … “Indeed, since Teague , the Court has yet to find a single rule that qualifies under the second exception,” despite numerous opportunities to do so. (United States v.

Gardner v. County of Los Angeles

34 Cal. App. 4th 200 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 25, 1995

Thus, plaintiffs clearly have satisfied the first requirement for a preliminary injunction. 3. Likelihood of Succeeding on the Merits. … Discretionary funds are the only source of funds for GA and also are the only source of funds for DHS, which is required by state law to meet specified funding levels in order to qualify for state matching funds.

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

Shaw v. Caldwell

16 Cal. App. 1 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 3, 1911

The fee thereby conveyed could only be reduced or qualified by language equally plain. Nothing of the kind is found. … It is indeed strange that it should be contended that a plaintiff declining to pay any part of the consideration or to meet his obligation imposed thereby could obtain from a court of equity a decree establishing his title

DiRosa v. Showa Denko K.K.

44 Cal. App. 4th 799 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 21, 1996

They further assert that in this case the jurors “were not called upon simply to make factual determinations, or to apply clearly applicable statutory standards, but, instead, were asked to interpret complex statutory definitions … manufacturing, packaging, processing, preparing; treating, packaging, transporting, or holding food; and including any source of radiation intended for any such use, if such substance is not generally recognized among experts qualified