Case law

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.

Ambrosini v. Alisal Sanitary District

154 Cal. App. 2d 720 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 28, 1957

“Before any garbage dump shall be established the location shall first be approved by the county health officer, and in addition, if the location is within two miles of any city the consent of the governing body of the city … We think these allegations clearly bring this case within article I, section 14, of the state Constitution.

People v. Morhar

78 Cal. App. 380 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 17, 1926

prosecution, after defendant had made a motion that the court advise the jury to acquit the defendant, the judge made several statements to the attorneys representing the respective parties to the controversy, which remarks clearly … The liberty and good name of defendant were at stake, and in a decision of so ■ great import the. defendant should not be obliged to take any more of the “rough chances of the law” than have been thoroughly established and

Vernon v. State of California

10 Cal. Rptr. 3d 121 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 25, 2004

“[IJndividuals who do not themselves qualify as employers may not be sued under the FEHA for alleged discriminatory acts.” (Id. at p. 663.) “In Reno v. … This subsection requires employers to establish and implement procedures for the proper use of respirators.

People v. Vasquez

California Court of Appeal · Dec 2, 2021

The question is essentially whether a defendant who clearly comes within the letter of the law, comes within the spirit of the law. … First, “‘[t]he burden is on the party attacking the sentence to clearly show that the sentencing decision was irrational or arbitrary. [Citation.]

Wilson v. Irwin Memorial Blood Bank

14 Cal. App. 4th 1315 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 9, 1993

Perkins wrote that “[f]urther experimental studies [of the anti-HBc test] are clearly warranted.” … As we observed in Osborn, this view of professional duty is long-established in this state, favored by most commentators, and followed in a majority of other jurisdictions. 5 (Osborn v.

People v. Burres

101 Cal. App. 3d 341 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 24, 1980

However, the Bedolla court went on to say that, in the absence of a request therefor by the defendant, an instruction on'criminal presumptions need not be qualified by informing the jury as to the effect of the presumption … While the instruction might have been framed to indicate more clearly to the jury its obligation to consider appellant’s explanation of his flight (People v.

L & S Framing Inc. v. Cal. Occupational Saf. & Health Appeals Bd.

California Court of Appeal · Jul 24, 2023

We conclude plaintiff failed to establish it would be prejudiced by this amendment. … the location here could not also qualify as a floor opening.

Hernandez v. City of Sacramento

54 Cal. Rptr. 3d 698 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 15, 2007

Clearly, drug abuse and prostitution within city boundaries are matters of municipal concern. … In addition, we are satisfied that having found the statute qualifies as a matter of statewide concern, the statute is "reasonably *709 related to the resolution of that concern" and "`narrowly tailored' to limit incursion

In re Jackson CA4/2

California Court of Appeal · Oct 14, 2020

qualified as a strike and defendant stipulated the preliminary hearing transcript could be used to establish a factual basis for his plea in the prior case. … Such a finding was necessary to establish the prior qualified as a strike. Rather, defendant repeatedly and consistently argued there was insufficient evidence to show his prior conviction was a strike.

Paulek v. Dept. of Fish and Game CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · Oct 28, 2014

Although we need not decide this issue because Paulek clearly fails to establish the second prong of the exception, we note Paulek has not produced any evidence that there is anything unusual about a conservation easement … the Conservation Easement for a categorical exemption for which it would otherwise not have qualified but for the mitigation.

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.

Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. Newsom

California Court of Appeal · Aug 26, 2019

Chapter 3 establishes the commission. Chapter 4 establishes disclosure requirements for candidates’ significant financial supporters. Chapter 5 places limitations on campaign spending. … Its ban on publicly funded mass mailings in section 89001 “most clearly and easily” met this requirement. (Ibid.)

People v. Coddington

California Court of Appeal · Oct 17, 2023

The case establishing the basis of this appeal arose in connection with an incident in October 2016 in which he attacked a fellow inmate at the Del Norte County Jail. … This focus on the retroactivity of Senate Bill No. 136 indicates the Legislature was clearly concerned with eliminating prison priors, the sole subject of Senate Bill No. 136.

Ledger v. Tippitt

164 Cal. App. 3d 625 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 8, 1985

A tortfeasor who acts so viciously and callously should not gain immunity merely because their marriage license was never recorded in some county recorder’s office. … that under a statute providing that “no person is a dependent of any deceased employee unless in good faith a member of the family or household of the employee,” it was held that a party to a meretricious relationship may qualify

People v. Dominguez CA5

California Court of Appeal · Jun 23, 2021

clearly appears.’ ” ’ ” (Ibid.; People v. Verdugo (2010) 50 Cal.4th 263, 308-309; People v. Minnick (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1478, 1481.) C. Analysis 1. … The court clearly intended to strike punishment on all of the prior serious felony and prior prison term enhancements.

Lillian F. v. Superior Court

160 Cal. App. 3d 314 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 27, 1984

In apparent recognition of the “intrusive” and “possibly hazardous” character of ECT, the Legislature has established a variety of procedural safeguards surrounding the use of the treatment for voluntarily or involuntarily … As well said by Judge Cooley, ‘The right to one’s person may be said to be a right of complete immunity: to be left alone. ’ Cooley on Torts, 29.” (Union Pacific Railway Co. v.

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

In re J.M. CA1/1

California Court of Appeal · Feb 26, 2013

‗A biological or natural father is one whose biological paternity has been established, but who has not achieved presumed father status . . . .‘ [Citation. … At the time of the motion, it had not been clearly established D. had caused the injuries, let alone that he had done so intentionally.

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.