Case law

People v. Brand

California Court of Appeal · Jan 11, 2021

condition requiring that defendant report ‘any contacts with . . . any peace officer’ is vague and 9 overbroad and does indeed leave one to guess what sorts of events and interactions qualify … We disagree with the People’s argument that the condition is clearly not triggered when defendant says ‘hello’ to a police officer or attends an event at which police officers are present, but would be triggered if defendant

Estate of Strader

132 Cal. Rptr. 2d 649 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 11, 2003

Therefore, even though a no contest clause is strictly construed to avoid forfeiture, it is the testator's intentions that control, and a court `must not rewrite the [testator's] will in such a way as to immunize legal proceedings … While Strader clearly intended to divide the residue of her estate among the five beneficiaries, that general intent does not address the question of the property that belongs or remains in the residue of the estate.

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

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.

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

Knight v. Alefosio

158 Cal. App. 3d 716 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 25, 1984

To be entitled to relief on appeal from the result of an alleged abuse of discretion it must clearly appear that the injury resulting from such a wrong is sufficiently grave to amount to a manifest miscarriage of justice; … In the natural order of precedence, the party must establish his right to be subrogated to the security before he can be permitted to enforce it.’” {Offer v. Superior Court, supra, 194 Cal. at pp. 117-118.)

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

Young v. Midland Funding, LLC

California Court of Appeal · Oct 7, 2022

Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, subdivision (b)(1) does not provide a form of immunity, “insulat[ing] defendants from any liability for claims arising from the protected rights of petition or speech.” (Baral v. … Thus, Young qualified as a “debtor” under the Rosenthal Act.

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.

Bert G. Gianelli Distributing Co. v. Beck & Co.

172 Cal. App. 3d 1020 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 10, 1985

If so, we believe the court’s determination to have been clearly erroneous. … Plaintiffs assert that the above establishes a violation of section 16727.

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.

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.

Newby v. Times-Mirror Co.

46 Cal. App. 110 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 12, 1920

“The truth of this part of the matter complained of, however, does not establish a defense to the other libelous publications concerning plaintiff. … The defendant may show, if he can, that the remainder of the libel not set out in the pleadings modifies the words sued on, or other passages in the same publication qualify them.

Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Utilities Commission

237 Cal. App. 4th 812 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 16, 2015

But the Commission was clearly of the opinion that Lead Counsel and his testimony were not credible. … The statutory scheme clearly accepts that the PUC will be able to identify when a violation amounts to a continuing one. How the Commission does so would clearly be another matter. (See Southern California Edison Co. v.

In Re Marriage of Hopson

110 Cal. App. 3d 884 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 6, 1980

Code, §§ 5150-5174; 3 UCCJA). 4 As Division One of this court established in Smith v. … Similarly qualified priority should also be accorded to the judgment of the court of greatest concern with the welfare of the children.

People v. Smith CA4/2

California Court of Appeal · May 17, 2016

The court stated that “applying established principles of statutory construction I believe a petitioner for resentencing under Proposition 47 must establish his or her eligibility for such resentencing. … It broadly covers all thefts and clearly mandates that thefts be considered petty if the property stolen is worth $950 or less.

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. ...