Case law

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.

Purdom v. Xu CA2/4

California Court of Appeal · Jul 8, 2024

Further Plaintiff did not set forth any qualified expert opinion to state that Dr. … We are not persuaded by the Attorneys’ contention that this exception so clearly applied to Zhang’s malpractice action that it defeats Purdom’s claims as a matter of law.

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. Vizcarra

California Court of Appeal · Oct 19, 2022

According to the Powell court, “[t]his language clearly suggests an aider and abettor can be liable for implied malice murder as a theory independent of the natural and probable consequences doctrine.” … Substantial evidence established these essential elements. (See 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

Weeshoff Construction Co. v. Los Angeles County Flood Control District

88 Cal. App. 3d 579 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 2, 1979

If the parties, by their conduct, clearly assent to a change or addition to the contractor’s required performance, a written “change order” requirement may be waived. (C. F. Bolster Co. v. J. C. Boespflug Etc. … District objected to the evidence on the ground that it did not qualify under the business records exception to the hearsay rule because it did not delineate exactly what work was being done. 8 District’s argument is erroneous

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

Hetrick v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co. CA5

California Court of Appeal · Nov 24, 2014

According to defendant, plaintiff failed to submit the required documentation necessary to verify his financial information to establish that he qualified for the modification offer. … that he qualified for a permanent modification under HAMP.

People v. Fitzgerald

29 Cal. App. 3d 296 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 11, 1972

Further, it is well established that an attorney representing a criminal defendant has the power to control the court proceedings.” (People v. … The deliberate preference for an individual of one race, and solely because of his race, over an individual of another race, even in cases where the latter individual is better qualified in all other respects, is a grave

People v. Drake CA2/7

California Court of Appeal · Apr 27, 2015

Because the record clearly demonstrates the trial court would have exercised its discretion to impose consecutive sentences, we conclude that even if there were error, it was harmless.1 Accordingly, we affirm the judgment … Legislature intended to establish section 269 as a sentencing scheme separate and apart from section 667.6, subdivision (d).

DLI Properties LLC v. Hill

California Court of Appeal · Nov 28, 2018

We agree the evidence established a lack of strict compliance. … The question then becomes whether plaintiff qualifies as a successor owner to which subdivision (c) applies.

People v. Hill

64 Cal. App. 3d 16 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 22, 1976

untrue) that the state or a responsible officer thereof, such as a judge of competent authority or a district attorney, has entered into a bargain purporting to commit the state to give the defendant a reward, in the form of immunity … Counsel established that the defendant waived his right to a jury trial on the issues presented, and then asked, “Was there anything further?”

Banker's Hill, Hillcrest, Park West Community Preservation Group v. City of San Diego

42 Cal. Rptr. 3d 537 · California Court of Appeal · May 8, 2006

C Applicable Legal Standards CEQA establishes the basic standard of review in a mandamus proceeding. … “[C]ourts should afford great weight to the Guidelines except when a provision is clearly unauthorized or erroneous under CEQA.” (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v.

Legal Aid Society of San Mateo v. Dept. of Finance

California Court of Appeal · Dec 29, 2020

under that subdivision and do not represent the exhaustive and complete list of what can qualify. … For purposes of the DDR process established by AB 1484, the Legislature listed three separate categories of enforceable obligations in section 34179.5, subdivision (b)(2).

Chisom v. Bd. of Retirement of County of Fresno Employees Retirement Assn. CA5

218 Cal. App. 4th 400 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 16, 2013

Upon satisfying age and service requirements, members of a county retirement system governed by CERL (such as FCERA) qualify to receive a service retirement allowance. … It was clearly the intent to have this agreement be the end.

McMillin v. Eare

California Court of Appeal · Feb 24, 2022

This proposition of law is clearly stated in Blackledge v. … Here, the evidence in the record establishes that Joshua and Som lived at the Anaheim property and paid the mortgage for a period of time.

Rea v. Blue Shield of California

226 Cal. App. 4th 1209 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 10, 2014

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California held that her claims were barred by sovereign immunity and the Parity Act was expressly preempted by the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act (5 U.S.C … However, 12 DMHC rejected this provision, not because it disagreed with Blue Shield, but because DMHC viewed the regulation as already clearly stating what Blue Shield was

Children etc. Com. of Fresno County v. Brown

228 Cal. App. 4th 45 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 22, 2014

Prop 10 also established a new state commission, known as the California Children and Families Commission (the state commission), and authorized each county to establish a county children and families commission. … The court determined the purposes of the two laws were conflicting: while Prop 10 “clearly requires” local experts and community representatives to decide how the 80% funds are to be spent, AB 99 “clearly divests” the county

People v. Leal

178 Cal. App. 4th 1051 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 29, 2009

(See id. at p._, *1066 fn. 11 [129 S.Ct. at p. 1723, fn. 11] [because a mistakenly liberal reading of police authority to search automobiles following an arrest was “widely accepted” prior to Gant , “the doctrine of qualified … immunity will shield officers from liability for searches conducted in reasonable reliance on that understanding”].) 4 Contrary to the People’s view, however, the law was not sufficiently muddled at the time of the search