Case law

Nichols v. County of Santa Clara

223 Cal. App. 3d 1236 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 14, 1990

Property Interest In light of this statute’s delegation of such broad discretion to the sheriff, it is well established that an applicant for a license to carry a concealed firearm has no legitimate claim of entitlement to … Millions of people qualify for them and regard them as essential to the conduct of ordinary life. Licenses to carry a concealed firearm, however, are rarities.

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.

Mueller v. County of Los Angeles

176 Cal. App. 4th 809 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 13, 2009

Clearly the department must have discretion with respect to its investigations of alleged violations of its written policy on behavior norms. … Plaintiff’s reliance on the deposition testimony of a person he describes as the county’s “person most qualified” is misplaced.

Gibson v. County of Sacramento

37 Cal. App. 523 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 14, 1918

on the seventeenth day of June, 1917, appointed plaintiffs as prosecuting officers in the matter óf said accusation, pursuant to the provisions of section 771 of the Penal Code; that plaintiffs accepted said appointment, qualified … The respondent, opposing the above construction of the provisions of the Political Code under consideration, undertakes to establish an analogy between a case where the court, exercising the authority conferred upon it by

In re Vaquera

California Court of Appeal · Aug 28, 2019

the number of an enhancement statute does not have to be alleged, so long as the accusatory pleading apprises the defendant of the potential for the enhanced penalty and alleges every fact and circumstance necessary to establish … Vaquera states: “There is no reason to believe the People could not select prosecution and sentencing under section 667.61, subdivision (b), as that subdivision is still current law and clearly fits the facts of this case

People v. King

99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 220 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 14, 2000

Persons convicted of sex offenses are required to provide blood samples for purposes of testing for acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). (Pen. Code, § 1202.1.) … And once an individual has been convicted of a crime or crimes, and has been incarcerated in a penal institution, his or her identity clearly becomes a matter of interest to prison officials.

O'Shea v. Lindenberg

California Court of Appeal · May 14, 2021

Rosenthal (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 1125, 1146-1147, which used the standard “so clearly contrary to established standards” that a finder of fact could find professional negligence without the testimony of an expert. … I&E 11  4 declarations and the purported need to explain “apparent forgeries” are judgment calls that qualify

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.”

McAllister v. California Coastal Commission

169 Cal. App. 4th 912 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 30, 2008

Rather, they focus on those particular resources that play a special role in an ecosystem and qualify an area as an environmentally sensitive habitat. … Clearly, the Commission had a duty to make express findings that it was excusing strict compliance with the development restriction to avoid a taking if that had been its reason for approving the Project.

Wilson v. Superior Court

148 Cal. App. 2d 433 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 11, 1957

When so called as a witness he “must answer questions legal and pertinent to the matter in issue, though his answer may establish a claim against himself. ” (§ 2065.) … *443 Clearly, we have two policies to reconcile. Of suggestive value is the statement in Paley v.

Gonsalves v. Li

232 Cal. App. 4th 1406 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 13, 2015

In sum, the speeding tickets were not relevant to establish Xiaoming’s liability or to otherwise “impeach” Xiaoming. … Li does not establish that the scope of Rao’s testimony was beyond that appropriate for a treating physician. Therefore, Li fails to meet his burden of establishing error. B.

Warren v. Schecter

57 Cal. App. 4th 1189 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 23, 1997

‘Manifested’ is that point at which the damage has become evidenced in some significant fashion; when the damage has clearly surfaced and is noticeable. … However, the evidence established those conditions were a known risk of the surgeries.

People Ex Rel. Department of Public Works v. City of Los Angeles

220 Cal. App. 2d 345 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 18, 1963

The law universally has adopted market value as establishing actual value, and however clumsy the appellant may think that the method is, it is the best one so far known to the law.” … Muller case it was restricted to certain uses, and the State took it in the condition in which it found it and it wasn’t purged of those uses and restrictions until after the State had acquired it. ’ ’ Defendants’ experts in qualifying

Misita v. Distillers Corp., Ltd.

54 Cal. App. 2d 244 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 31, 1942

Plaintiff furnished the bond, and the receiver qualified and took charge of the business, but at the end of approximately three weeks the receivership was terminated under the following circumstances: At the hearing of the … will probably be lost or destroyed before a decree can be rendered, or where there are such dissensions within the corporation that its business cannot be honestly *251 or properly managed, or if for any other reason it clearly

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

Nielsen v. Hannaford

169 Cal. App. 2d 297 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 1, 1959

These decisions, however, all qualify the rule by the additional statement that if the subsequent declaration is contained in a legally executed and probated will, it is competent evidence of the advancement and must prevail … The language clearly expresses testatrix’ intention that loans and gifts be treated in exactly the same manner. The gifts being advancements, the loans are also advancements.

Semprini v. Wedbush Securities, Inc.

California Court of Appeal · Nov 9, 2020

The question presented here is whether a compensation plan based solely on commissions, with recoverable advances on future commissions, qualifies as a “salary” for purposes of this exemption. We conclude it does not. … This section “prohibits an employer from deducting amounts from an employee’s wages, even as a setoff for amounts clearly owed by the employee,” and “reflects ‘California’s strong public policy favoring the protection of

McKevitt v. City of Sacramento

55 Cal. App. 117 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 8, 1921

need not be specifically considered. ■ After the city commission had by affirmative action accepted the offer of the respondents to transfer the park site to the municipality the matter was submitted, by referendum, to the qualified … Code, sec. 1624, subd. 5), and, second, that the terms of the agreement are not sufficiently certain to make the precise act which is to be done clearly ascertainable. (Civ.

Wilcox v. Molina Healthcare CA2/4

California Court of Appeal · Apr 25, 2025

The special verdict must present the conclusions of fact as established by the evidence, and not the evidence to prove them; and those conclusions of fact must be so presented as that nothing shall remain to the Court but … Here, the record supports the jury’s finding that Molina did not know Wilcox suffered from a qualifying physical condition under FEHA.

Pope v. State Board of Equalization

146 Cal. App. 3d 1132 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 14, 1983

We also observe that although the Legislature to date has failed to address this issue directly, its inaction clearly is not the result of ignorance as to the nature of the controversy. … The value so established “shall be known as the base year value for the property.” (Id., subd.