Case law

People v. Garcia

California Court of Appeal · Mar 28, 2022

Defendant has a heavy burden to establish ineffective assistance on direct appeal. … Moreover, most of the alleged claims of error qualify as litigation tactics.

Santa Clara County Correctional Peace Officers' Ass'n v. County of Santa Clara

224 Cal. App. 4th 1016 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 17, 2014

It is ultimately a judicial function to interpret a statute, but courts will defer to a statutory interpretation by an agency like the Public Employment Relations Board (“PERB”) that administers a statute, unless it is clearly … The appellate court in that case discussed several criteria for an emergency and recognized that an imminent and substantial threat to public health certainly qualified. (Id. at p. 277.)

CCPOA v. State

98 Cal. Rptr. 2d 302 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 18, 2000

"As a matter of constitutional law, it is well established that a public employee has no absolute right to refuse to answer potentially incriminating questions posed by his employer. … The declarations in the present case clearly indicate that subdivision (h) was violated on a number of occasions. Officers who invoked their right to remain silent should have been given admonishments.

Wilson v. San Francisco Municipal Railway

29 Cal. App. 3d 870 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 9, 1973

With qualifying adjectives in some instances, which we do not deem significant here (e.g„, “governing” in section 54952, “advisory” in section 54952.3, and “permanent,” with other more specific terms, in section 54952.5 [ … “Excepting when clearly otherwise intended or indicated, words in a statute should be given their ordinary meaning and receive a sensible construction in accord with the commonly understood meaning thereof.”

Dickson v. Burke Williams, Inc.

California Court of Appeal · Mar 24, 2015

They clearly followed the CACI, or they couldn’t have gotten here, and they did. [¶] And so the motion for a JNOV, a new trial, is denied. [¶] . . . [¶] The motion is denied. … Friedman, Sloan & Ross (1991) 54 Cal.3d 26, 50.) 8 sufficiently severe or pervasive so as to alter the conditions of employment and create a work environment that qualifies

Superior Strut & Hanger Co. v. Port of Oakland

72 Cal. App. 3d 987 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 29, 1977

We conclude, therefore, that section 7262 as it was amended in 1971 requires mandatory relocation payments to qualified persons who are displaced after July 1, 1972. … Thus the court below was entitled to consider the applicable limitations period as that established in the relocation guidelines.

Graham v. American Golf CA2/1

California Court of Appeal · May 7, 2015

The sixth cause of action for violation of the Bane Act failed because Graham could not establish a violation of his rights under the California Constitution and the City defendants were immune from liability under Government … as established by the golf course property management agreements, or so-called ‘leases,’ establish an illegal proprietary undertaking for which there is no immunity for any Defendant party.”

Hart v. Browne

103 Cal. App. 3d 947 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 31, 1980

Such a misrepresentation of opinion is actionable when the declarant holds himself out to be specially qualified in the area on which he gives the opinion. (Harazim v. … Reliance on his opinion was clearly a normal consequence of the situation.

Gillis v. Sun Insurance Office, Ltd.

238 Cal. App. 2d 408 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 26, 1965

It being established that Kingston Trio, Inc. was entitled to the benefits of the policy as the intended insured, no issue is or can be raised concerning the established assignment of the claim to plaintiff. (See Ins. … Co. (1964) 225 Cal.App.2d 275 [ 37 Cal.Rptr. 303 ], wherein the policy used the same qualifying words which have been emphasized above in describing the peril— “ ‘direct loss to the property covered caused by: ... 15.

Windham v. Board of Medical Quality Assurance

104 Cal. App. 3d 461 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 28, 1980

Thus, the Board found that respondent had started to study a new specialty in California when he arrived here in 1972, that he had become Board qualified in that specialty, that he makes many appearances as an expert witness … Clearly, the charitable work respondent is *474 to do as a condition of probation is right in line with the purpose of the proceedings below.

Sellers v. S.C. CA4/2

California Court of Appeal · Oct 8, 2021

The court placed too much emphasis on the need for a prognosis showing petitioner’s health was actively in decline to the exclusion of the medical records that clearly pointed to the need for an expedited trial. … This was sufficient to establish trial preference under section 36, subdivision (a).

People v. Barney

8 Cal. App. 4th 798 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 5, 1992

(2) the witness furnishing such testimony must be properly qualified as an expert to give an opinion on the subject. … Clearly, a match of DNA patterns is a matter of substantial significance.

People v. Palomar CA2/6

California Court of Appeal · Nov 13, 2023

convicted him, the court erred in denying the petition [and] finding [he] had failed to establish a prima facie case.” … The trial court stated: “The real issue that I see here is that if the Court is aware that the petition doesn’t qualify or will not 5 ultimately qualify for relief under [section 1172.6

Taggares v. Superior Court

62 Cal. App. 4th 94 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 13, 1998

The Legislature also authorized the courts to establish responsibility for the fee. … While JAMS undoubtedly is a qualified service, it is only one of several competing private entrepreneurs in this market.

People v. P.A.

211 Cal. App. 4th 23 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 15, 2012

Code, § 3534 [“Particular expressions qualify those which are general.”]; San Francisco Taxpayers Assn. v. … The specific provision (no blood testing) would clearly control over the general provision (court may impose reasonable conditions).

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.

People v. Bunas

California Court of Appeal · Jul 5, 2022

They argued in part as follows: “Here, [Bunas] clearly poses a significant risk to the community. … To begin with, “ ‘It is appellant’s burden on appeal to establish an abuse of discretion and prejudice.’ ” (People v.

Zochlinski v. Blum CA3

California Court of Appeal · Jun 28, 2023

Plaintiff further asserted the e-mail, at most, was subject to qualified immunity, and that there was “an abundance of evidence of malice to overcome this privilege.” … Siam does not stand for the proposition that all state civil rights causes of action are, in effect, immune from anti-SLAPP special motions to strike.

In re. Ella S. CA1/2

California Court of Appeal · Aug 27, 2015

eventually obtained a court “Order Establishing Fact of Birth.” … insufficient to so qualify.

People v. Williams CA3

California Court of Appeal · Dec 31, 2025

he admitted the offense qualified as a strike. … The People further contend that any error was harmless as the nongang evidence was sufficient to establish Williams’s guilt.