Case law

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

Payne v. Oakland Traction Co.

15 Cal. App. 127 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 31, 1910

The rule as we have thus attempted to state it is thus clearly and concisely expounded in the case of Kenna v. Central Pac. R. R. … The principle that servants assume the risks of the business is qualified by the duty of the master to protect them from unnecessary hazards, including the negligence of fellow-servants, by making such reasonable rules as

People v. Landau

246 Cal. App. 4th 850 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 20, 2016

Appellant’s counsel clearly attempted to prevent the district attorney from calling appellant as a witness, but she failed to object on equal protection grounds. … “It is then up to the party who calls the expert to introduce other evidence establishing the facts assumed by the expert.” (Id. at p.

Continental Airlines, Inc. v. McDonnell Douglas Corp.

216 Cal. App. 3d 388 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 7, 1989

It is well established California law that “ ‘[s]ince direct proof of fraudulent intent is often impossible, the intent may be established by [in]ference *412 from acts of the parties.’ [Citation.]” 11 (Delos v. … The holding in Cobbledick-Kibbe is contrary to established California law and is factually distinguishable.

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.”

Newhart v. Pierce

254 Cal. App. 2d 783 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 29, 1967

Newhart’s guess that the value of the ranch was $150,000 was qualified by his statement that this was the depreciated value after defendants had removed 815 head of cattle, exclusive of calves, from the ranch. … In view of the fact that the evidence we shall review below clearly establishes that the contract price of the cattle alone equaled the value of the cattle, it inescapably follows that if we accept this particular statement

People v. Hernandez

California Court of Appeal · Jan 12, 2015

Second, the police detective’s “recitation of Miranda’s basic warnings consume[d] twelve pages of transcript, largely a byproduct of the detective’s continuous usage of qualifying language.” … A review of the video recording of the interrogation establishes that defendant never showed any distress over not being allowed to use the bathroom.

People v. Arno

90 Cal. App. 3d 505 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 7, 1979

This examination amounts to a balancing of interests between the security of public order by the solution and prevention of crimes, and a person’s immunity from police interference into his privacy.’ Commonwealth v. … The covers of many of the boxes clearly visible to him were photographs depicting acts of oral copulation and sodomy.

People v. Horowitz

70 Cal. App. 2d 675 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 5, 1945

It is the function of the jury and of the trial court to determine what facts are established and no verdict will be upset on appeal for the insufficiency of the evidence unless “it ... be made clearly to appear that upon … There is no prescribed standard of mental competency to qualify one as a witness. It is well known that out of the mouths of babes oftentimes the truth is spoken.

Buena Vista Gardens Apartments Ass'n v. City of San Diego Planning Department

175 Cal. App. 3d 289 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 5, 1985

It read: “The plan shall include the following elements: *297 “(c) A housing element, to be developed pursuant to regulations established under Section 41134 of the Health and Safety Code, consisting of standards and plans … “Nonetheless, before 1982, California courts had recognized that general plans were not immune from review by courts.

Strobel v. Johnson & Johnson

California Court of Appeal · Oct 21, 2021

Because LTL is not a party to this appeal, the appeal does not qualify as a “judicial . . . proceeding against the debtor.” … The tested samples of Mennen shave talc revealed “ ‘countable structures of amphibole’ minerals, the majority of which ‘were clearly asbestiform in crystalline habit.’ ” (Id. at p. 633.)

V Lions Farming, LLC v. County of Kern

California Court of Appeal · Mar 7, 2024

Those regulations state: “Compensatory mitigation means the restoration (re-establishment or rehabilitation), establishment (creation), enhancement, and/or in certain circumstances preservation of aquatic … Sierra Club’s papers clearly show that extreme scenario is not the foundation for its claims of error.

Not About Water Committee v. Board of Supervisors

116 Cal. Rptr. 2d 526 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 31, 2002

This was clearly recognized in early decisions of this court.... The scope of judicial review of such actions is accordingly quite narrow. . . . … Like the Bolen court, “we are satisfied that the governmental unit[] at issue lack[s] the indicia of ‘general governmental powers’ and . . . qualifies] as the sort of ‘special-purpose unit[] of government’ that [is] not subject

Highland Securities Co. v. Superior Court

119 Cal. App. 107 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 9, 1931

. *109 Curry qualified by taking the necessary oath of office and giving a bond in the sum of $25,000 for the faithful performance of his duties, as required by the order appointing him. … He is appointed for the benefit of all parties who may establish rights in the cause. The money in his hands is in custodia legis for whoever can make out a title to it. Delany v. Mansfield, 1 Hogan (Ir.), 234.

Coastline JX Holdings LLC v. Bennett

California Court of Appeal · Jul 7, 2022

ERISA provides unequivocally that pension benefits under a qualified plan are not assignable. … This authority ‘“arises from necessity where, in the absence of any previously established procedural rule, rights would be lost or the court would be unable to function.”’ . . .

Elder v. Pacific Bell Telephone Co.

205 Cal. App. 4th 841 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 30, 2012

The PUC further concluded: “In this rulemaking proceeding we reaffirm the principle that tariffs, and any limitation of liability provisions included in tariffs, are not designed to immunize carriers from liability for willful … In its “Final Decision Adopting California Telephone Corporation Billing Rules,” dated October 28, 2010, the PUC adopted “modifications” to General Order No. 168 “to ensure that Part 4 of GO 168 clearly specifies the rules

Rojas v. Superior Court

126 Cal. Rptr. 2d 97 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 15, 2003

They contend such evidence *104 is therefore "clearly otherwise admissible," pursuant to the provisions of section 1120, and at the very least, any evidence prepared prior to the CMO, which commenced the mediation process … In construing sections 1119 and 1120, we are guided by well established principles of statutory construction.

People v. Ruiz CA4/2

California Court of Appeal · Jan 13, 2016

First, defendant argues the CLETS printout is not sufficient evidence that defendant had a prior adjudication for robbery because it does not clearly specify that defendant suffered a prior adjudication for robbery and … declined to use a prior juvenile adjudication to elevate a drunk driving charge from a misdemeanor to a felony pursuant to Vehicle Code former section 23550.5, subdivision (a)(2), which allows such when the People can establish

Benson v. Kwikset Corp.

152 Cal. App. 4th 1254 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 29, 2007

and unmistakably” established. … This is too well established in too many different contexts to be doubted. ...

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.