Case law

Carlsbad Police Officers Assn. v. City of Carlsbad

California Court of Appeal · May 18, 2020

The trial court expressed as much in allowing intervention: "clearly, we have got a very important issue statewide. I'm not the only court looking at this." … We agree that the ACLU and Media interveners qualified for intervention of right.

Stanton & Sons v. County of Los Angeles

78 Cal. App. 2d 181 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 20, 1947

the consular certificates of origin describe the shipments by board feet, grade and variety; (5) the absence of an address from each board and the manner of transporting the lumber as an aggregation of goods—-these facts establish … In each of those cases it is made clearly to appear that the imported merchandise was taxed after United States customs duties had been paid and while the merchandise lay in the warehouse of the importer, either in the same

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.

Brothers v. Kern

64 Cal. Rptr. 3d 239 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 17, 2007

This establishes that interest income is a proper basis for calculating child support. … This establishes that the use of imputed rather than actual interest income does not conflict with the statute.

Graham v. Bank of America, N.A.

226 Cal. App. 4th 594 · California Court of Appeal · May 23, 2014

Appraisals are "an opinion as to the market value" of a property prepared by a qualified independent appraiser. (12 C.F.R. §§ 34.42(a), 34.45 (2014); 12 Witkin, Summary of Cal. … how the agreement was presented to the plaintiff, facts establishing relative bargaining power, or facts establishing a lack of negotiation."

In Re Ramirez

114 Cal. Rptr. 2d 381 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 12, 2001

The Board is required to “establish criteria for the setting of parole release dates.” (Ibid.) … The history of our Supreme Court’s parole decisions supports the conclusion that the Board’s discretion over parole suitability decisions is neither unlimited nor immune from judicial review.

People v. Stephen

182 Cal. App. 3d 1230 · California Court of Appeal · May 1, 1986

The imposition of such restraints clearly reflects the Legislature's intent to circumscribe the exercise of discretion by the trial court in approving civil compromises. … Loss of profits qualify as recoverable special damages. ( Id., at pp. 118, 121.)

California Correctional Peace Officers Ass'n v. Department of Corrections

85 Cal. Rptr. 2d 797 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 16, 1999

A plain reading of both sections 12021 and 12021.1 establishes unambiguously that those convicted of a violation of section 246 are subject to a permanent firearm ban. A. … The California Supreme Court has stated that “ ‘it is well established that reports of legislative committees and commissions are part of a statute’s legislative history and may be considered when the meaning of a statute

People v. Sharp

29 Cal. App. 4th 1772 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 14, 1994

Thus, even if he could not clearly see all of her facial expressions, appellant could observe the witness’s general demeanor and reactions to the questioning. … There *1785 was no error in the trial court’s decision to authorize this procedure, which clearly “preserve[d] the essence of effective confrontation.” (Maryland v.

Shabshin v. Pacifici

196 Cal. App. 2d 192 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 10, 1961

In any event, it is the law that duly qualified experts may testify not only to the facts but to the conclusions to which they lead (McStay v. Citizens Nat. Trust & Sav. … Bank, 5 Cal.App.2d 595 [ 43 P.2d 560 ]) and their opinions may properly constitute probative facts to establish the ultimate fact. (Northern Calif. Power Co. v. Waller, 174 Cal. 377 [ 163 P. 214 ].)

In Re Kazas

22 Cal. App. 2d 161 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 22, 1937

They should be clearly convinced that a statute *167 is unconstitutional before they declare it invalid. Cf. Ives v. South Buffalo Ry. Co., 201 N. Y. 271 [ 94 N. E. 431 , 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 162, Ann. … “That the qualifying phrase must be given effect all advocates of broad construction admit. Hamilton, in his well-known Report on Manufactures, states that the purpose must be ‘general, and not local’. . . .

City of Carson v. CITY OF LA MIRADA

22 Cal. Rptr. 3d 815 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 30, 2004

That is, the company’s sales force solicits customers for whom they establish accounts. … Corporate Express’s physical size and ability to generate sales tax revenue make it a “big box retailer. ” The sole substantive question before us is whether Corporate Express qualifies as a “big box retailer” as that term

Mazzola v. City and County of San Francisco

112 Cal. App. 3d 141 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 17, 1980

Subsequently, the strike emergency committee was established. … Quite clearly, official misconduct requires a direct relationship of the alleged wrongdoing to the office held.

Altman v. Cox

83 Cal. App. 3d 296 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 27, 1978

The Public Administrator was duly appointed and qualified as administrator on November 23, 1973. … The evidence presented to the probate court in the present case, when viewed in the light most favorable to the respondents, was clearly insufficient to prove that the assignments violated public policy.

People v. Gray

66 Cal. App. 4th 973 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 12, 1998

The statutory language clearly permits a conviction for carjacking based on evidence of the latter intent. 4 The legislative history of section 215 supports our conclusion. In People v. … punishment for habitual criminals, it is illogical to compare [appellant’s] punishment for his ‘offense,’ which includes his recidivist behavior, to the punishment of others who have committed more serious crimes, but have not qualified

People v. Phelps CA4/2

California Court of Appeal · Jun 27, 2023

The evidence did not clearly establish that the California Rehabilitation Center in Norco was a California Conservation Camp program. … Defendant’s petition and supporting documentation did not clearly allege or establish that he satisfied the requirements of the statute.

Shade Foods, Inc. v. Innovative Products Sales & Marketing, Inc.

93 Cal. Rptr. 2d 364 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 29, 2000

Upon learning of the loss, the insurer established a reserve of only $200,000. … Thus, the portion of the case involving Shade’s suit against Royal for indemnification and bad faith is immune from objection.

Boelts v. City of Lake Forest

25 Cal. Rptr. 3d 164 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 24, 2005

Section 33500 cannot be used to immunize an agency which adopts a redevelopment plan legal on its face, then after the 60-day period has elapsed deviates from its resolved purpose and seeks to violate the public use requirement … There is no authority offered for this statement, though there is a footnote qualifying it for cases (see §§ 33031, 33354.6) when new territory is added. (Appellant’s opening brief at p. 19.)

Save the Plastic Bag Coalition v. City of Manhattan Beach

181 Cal. App. 4th 521 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 27, 2010

Wadden stated: "Clearly [the California Environmental Quality Act] applies .... We never argued that it wasn't a project. I think it clearly is a project ...." … Monterey County Bd. of Supervisors, supra, 222 Cal.App.3d at p. 1347 .) [¶] ... [¶] If the project does not qualify for a negative declaration . . ., `the third step in the process is to prepare a full environmental impact

People v. White

34 Cal. Rptr. 3d 848 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 14, 2005

In finding appellant guilty on count 2, the jury clearly believed that appellant was the assailant and that Rita was forced to orally copulate him under threat of being shot. … One court has held that the dividing line between threat of future harm and fear of immediate injury may be difficult to distinguish and some types of threats may qualify as either. In People v.