Case law

People v. Wilson CA5

California Court of Appeal · Mar 4, 2026

Rather, “defendant is clearly recidivist.” … To achieve this end, ‘the Three Strikes law … establishes a sentencing requirement to be applied in every case where the defendant has at least one qualifying strike, unless the sentencing court “conclud[es] that an exception

Lee v. DFS Group CA1/4

California Court of Appeal · Jun 27, 2016

To establish a prima facie case, the plaintiff generally “must provide evidence that (1) [she] was a member of a protected class, (2) [she] was qualified for the position [she] sought or was performing competently in the … Johnson & Johnson Med., Inc. (3d Cir. 2000) 228 F.3d 313, 321 [“just as use of [highly subjective] criteria does not establish discrimination, cloaking such criteria with an appearance of objectivity does not immunize an

Baek v. County of Los Angeles CA2/3

California Court of Appeal · Feb 14, 2025

Schirn gave Baek an overall score of “well qualified” in five areas and “exceptionally qualified” in one area. Baek received an overall score of 90, which placed her in Band 1, the highest scoring band of applicants. … for the position at issue and why the candidate selected for the position was better qualified.”

Lund v. Merrick CA4/3

California Court of Appeal · May 21, 2014

The bills are clearly hearsay, but no one made an effort to qualify them for the business 4 records exception of Evidence Code section 1271. … If and when the total fees are properly established, the fees for the original motion may not be included in any subsequent award the trial court may make.

People v. Multani

California Court of Appeal · Nov 26, 2024

However, he argued that Multani satisfied the requirement for compassionate release because “clearly his life is much shorter than it would have been.” … authorize a facility’s chief medical officer to determine whether an incarcerated person satisfies the criteria for release instead of the CDCR Secretary, require CDCR to recommend recall of a person’s sentence if that person qualifies

People v. Boston CA1/3

California Court of Appeal · Mar 29, 2024

stage, the “court may look at the record of conviction, which will necessarily inform its ‘prima facie inquiry under section [1172.6], allowing the court to distinguish petitions with potential merit from those that are clearly … Boston argues that the jury did not necessarily make findings to establish that his conduct would constitute murder under current law.

San Diego County Health & Human Services Agency v. Jamie P.

214 Cal. App. 4th 525 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 14, 2013

Joshua first visited San Diego in late May 2012 to meet and begin to establish a relationship with A.J. By all accounts, this visit was a success. Joshua and A.J. visited daily both at Polinsky and at a nearby park. … Joshua certainly qualified as a noncustodial, nonoffending parent, and the court found that placement with him would be in A.J.’s best interests.

People v. Smith

13 Cal. App. 3d 897 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 29, 1970

Evidence Code *904 section 700 declares that “except as otherwise provided by statute” every person is qualified as a witness. … James and warned him that he would not grant him immunity from prosecution. Mr. Barkett requested the court to ascertain from defendant whether defendant wished Mr.

Department of Toxic Substances Control v. Superior Court

44 Cal. App. 4th 1418 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 29, 1996

Contention The Department contends the superior court’s “denial of the inspection warrant... is clearly erroneous as a matter of law.” 4 B. Administrative Inspection Warrants Camara v. … Section 1822.50 is coexistent with the rule established in Camara .

Luke v. Sonoma County

California Court of Appeal · Dec 12, 2019

We must take the allegations of the operative complaint as true and consider whether the facts alleged establish [Plaintiff’s] claim is barred as a matter of law.” (Aryeh, supra, 55 Cal.4th at p. 1191.) … limitations period following a first breach of duty or instance of misconduct were treated as sufficient to bar suit for any subsequent breach or misconduct; parties engaged in long-standing misfeasance would thereby obtain immunity

People v. Ewing

90 Cal. Rptr. 2d 177 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 2, 1999

We reject the first contention but agree the prosecution failed to establish the victim suffered substantial emotional distress. Accordingly, we reverse. … Moreover, these terms as they appear in the statute cannot be read in a vacuum. *208 First, we note they are preceded and qualified with the adverb “seriously.”

Security Commercial & Savings Bank v. Southern Trust & Commerce Bank

74 Cal. App. 734 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 28, 1925

This custom and its recognition was clearly stated in the opinion of our supreme court in Crocker-Woolworth Bank v. … But he also on cross-examination even more clearly than the witness Mueller qualified the foregoing assertion by saying that there was no uniform custom among the banks as to the method of handling checks sent for collection

Howard v. D. W. Hobson Co.

38 Cal. App. 445 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 17, 1918

But, clearly, that provision was only designed to protect owners of real estate against unfounded claims of brokers. … A *Page 457 careful analysis of the following cases cited by the appellant will show that they do not modify or qualify or in any way change the rule as it is declared in Gorham v.

Community Action Agency of Butte County v. Super. Ct.

California Court of Appeal · May 27, 2022

In 1981, “Congress established the Community Services Block Grant Program, which provides lump sums to state governments. … “CPRA establishes a basic rule requiring disclosure of public records upon request. (§ 6253.)

People v. Brych

203 Cal. App. 3d 1068 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 16, 1988

O’Connor’s blood, which would stimulate his body’s immune system to combat the cancer. In a telephone conversation a few days later, Dr. O’Connor told Dr. … An attorney cannot prosecute an appeal on behalf of a client whose conduct and refusal to communicate evidence a total abandonment of his appeal. 4 We express no opinion as to whether, standing alone, the establishment of

People v. Eid

31 Cal. App. 4th 114 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 29, 1994

Proposition 115 amended section 872, subdivision (b), to permit a probable cause determination based on hearsay statements of a qualified police officer (see fn. 2, ante). … The evidence presented by the People clearly met that standard.

People v. King CA4/3

California Court of Appeal · Sep 8, 2025

The second thing the trial court observed was that King’s crimes would qualify as prior serious felonies for purposes of the nickel prior statute. However, they would not have qualified for the prison prior enhancement. … When the truth of the allegation of conviction of a crime qualifying for a five- year enhancement has been established, it is mandatory that the enhancement be imposed. (People v.

People v. Freeman CA3

California Court of Appeal · Dec 16, 2013

You don’t have some borderline case that you should disclose and the Court should then decide if it qualifies? “A. No, Your Honor. … “Documents clearly irrelevant to a defendant’s Pitchess request need not be presented to the trial court for in camera review”; however, “[t]he custodian should be prepared to state in chambers and for the record what other

Gooden v. County of Los Angeles

California Court of Appeal · Oct 25, 2024

The 2015 ordinance obligated anyone seeking to open a new vineyard or to expand an existing vineyard to obtain a conditional use permit; it also established development standards for all vineyards—existing or new—to address … substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance . . . ; (3) a feasible project alternative or mitigation measure that clearly

Ticor Title Insurance v. Employers Insurance of Wausau

40 Cal. App. 4th 1699 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 15, 1995

The defense obligation “is established at the outset of the litigation and is fixed by facts which the insurer gamers from the complaint and other sources which give rise to a potential of liability under the policy. … Turning to the complaint, we first note that the numerous allegations of Ticor’s intentional misconduct would not fall within the scope of coverage because the acts in question would not qualify as an “occurrence.”