Case law

Gibson v. De La Salle Institute

66 Cal. App. 2d 609 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 31, 1944

The governing principle as to when parol testimony may be introduced to explain the language of a contract or to ascertain the intention of the parties is clearly set forth in Kenney v. … Furthermore, Hoffman’s wire qualified the terms “cash” by stating that he could supply warehouse receipts on 250,000 gallons, which indicates, if it means anything, that he did not contemplate a single delivery.

Charisma R. v. Kristina S.

175 Cal. App. 4th 361 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 26, 2009

In that case, a man was denied presumed parent status because he had not clearly held the child out as his own and because there was a conclusive presumption that the mother’s former husband was the father. … Clearly, Kristina is mistaken in asserting the evidence showed only that Charisma “told a few people that [Amalia] was ‘her baby.’ ” The evidence showed that Charisma openly and publicly asserted her parentage in various

Maier Brewing Co. v. Pacific National Fire Insurance

218 Cal. App. 2d 869 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 5, 1963

Reasonably interpreted this statement clearly implies the absence of an intent to defer the formation of a contract finalizing the single intention theretofore entertained by both parties. … Mat Graham, a qualified appraiser, dealing with the amount of loss sustained.

Marina Pacifica Homeowners Ass'n v. Southern California Financial Corp.

11 Cal. App. 5th 54 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 24, 2017

We observed the evidence showed that “far from being hidden, the assignment fee was clearly disclosed to purchasers,” who had both constructive notice and actual notice of the assignment fee. (Id. at p. 512.) … In addition, the Legislature’s intent that the assignment fees we found enforceable in Marina Pacifica I were to remain enforceable (if recorded during 2016) is entirely consistent with established legal principles on the

People v. Jackson

1 Cal. Rptr. 3d 253 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 27, 2003

S.Ct. 2525 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 ], He conducted his own defense at the preliminary examination and thereafter filed numerous pretrial motions. 4 As the August 25 trial date approached, however, defendant decided he was not qualified … This evidence, along with defendant’s objectionable closing argument, establishes, however, that he was contesting these points during the trial.

Tain v. State Board of Chiropractic Examiners

30 Cal. Rptr. 3d 330 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 22, 2005

The standards governing summary judgment motions and appellate review thereof are well established. … In Crees , the plaintiff chiropractors 8 sued for declaratory relief to have certain rights, immunities and privileges defined and declared under the 1913 MPA and the Chiropractic Act.

People v. Hall

124 Cal. Rptr. 2d 806 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 5, 2002

That designation was clearly in error. We will address this issue on pages 1024-1025, post. *1018 “Involuntary AIDS or human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) testing is strictly limited by statute. [Citations.]” (People v. … To determine whether it is, we interpret the clause in light of well-established principles of statutory construction.

Capital Research & Management Co. v. Brown

53 Cal. Rptr. 3d 770 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 26, 2007

These payments are based principally on a pro rata share of a qualifying dealer’s *63 sales. [AFD] will, on an annual basis, determine the advisability of continuing these payments.” … The Committee clearly does not intend for the ‘policing’ authority to provide states with a means to undo the state registration preemptions.” (Sen. Rep.

People v. Aikens

207 Cal. App. 3d 209 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 16, 1988

Must there be an "automatic" mistrial, even though qualified alternate jurors are available? … , facts that could underlie, if not necessarily establish, its verdict on the open charges....

Civic Western Corp. v. Zila Industries, Inc.

66 Cal. App. 3d 1 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 18, 1977

In order to more clearly understand the contentions of the parties, we deem it advisable to set forth both procedural and substantive details of this litigation. *6 Plaintiff Civic filed an action against defendant Zila on … Without an extended discussion of semantics, we observe that these terms are meaningless unless qualified by context, i.e., a judgment may be final, but modifiable at the trial level, or final for the purpose of appeal.

Kashani v. TSANN KUEN CHINA ENTERPRISE CO.

13 Cal. Rptr. 3d 174 · California Court of Appeal · May 11, 2004

Neither generalization is accurate, and the better authorities immediately qualify any such statement by acknowledging a lengthy and intricate list of exceptions.” (Tent. Draft, supra, § 32, com. b, p. 157.) … Here plaintiffs’ activities are clearly covered by the applicable regulations.

People v. Metoyer CA5

California Court of Appeal · Feb 27, 2024

The trial court denied defendant’s motion because the “totality of the information submitted” by defendant failed to clearly establish that “defendant’s mental disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the charged … The People argue that the trial court’s decision would be the same because defendant’s motion clearly established that he was not suitable for mental health diversion.

Lewis v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County

175 Cal. App. 3d 366 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 6, 1985

Canoga Industries (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 956, 963 [ 148 Cal.Rptr. 459 ], where the “equity based decisional rule of tolling” established in Bollinger, supra, and Elkins, supra, is discussed.) … the quoted language in Sanchez , the court points out that the plaintiff (claiming partial tolling due to her one-month hospitalization for physical disability 10 months prior to the end of the statutory period) did not qualify

Wong Kit v. Crescent Creamery Co.

87 Cal. App. 563 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 14, 1927

Undoubtedly, the act of accelerating his speed when he arrived at the center line of the street was caused by some reason or some purpose which suddenly occurred to him, and clearly the jury could very properly have concluded … Nor is the driver of an automobile necessarily immune from liability for injuries to other persons occurring in a public street by merely showing that at the time of the accident he was running at a rate of speed of twelve

People v. Greenberger

58 Cal. App. 4th 298 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 2, 1997

Both Plzak and Korban testified at trial under a grant of immunity. … Although respondent argues that Radin’s kidnapping cannot be characterized as the “same conduct” as the murder of Radin, we are satisfied that the facts herein clearly establish that the kidnapping was part of the same conduct

Law Offices of Dixon R. Howell v. Valley

29 Cal. Rptr. 3d 499 · California Court of Appeal · May 27, 2005

Summary judgment should have been granted because Law Firm: (a) established all elements of its breach of contract claim; (b) negated the defense of estoppel under section 6201 by establishing that Client waived his right … We note that the mere fact that Law Firm incurred litigation expense ( ibid. ) does not establish prejudice.

People v. Espey CA3

California Court of Appeal · May 21, 2021

Defendant has failed to clearly show that the sentencing decision was irrational or arbitrary. … If the trial court determines that defendant qualifies for diversion under section 1001.36, then the court may grant diversion.

People v. Tarkington

California Court of Appeal · Jun 2, 2020

As the instant matter demonstrates, it has not been the case that only defendants convicted of qualifying crimes under qualifying theories have petitioned. (See, e.g., People v. … Section 1170.95 Section 1170.95 establishes a four-step resentencing process: the petition, the prima facie review, an evidentiary hearing, and the resentencing.

Treadway v. Board of Directors

14 Cal. App. 75 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 11, 1910

that might thereafter, by changes or by amendment or otherwise be in force relating thereto; that, in the month of December, 1903, the said board of directors considered said application, and finding the said applicant qualified … It would be difficult to express more clearly the intention of the trustor than is such intention expressed in the present case.

Estate of Gerst

153 Cal. App. 2d 528 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 3, 1957

Courtright, a police officer of the city of Santa Monica assigned to the Division of Identification, called by appellant and qualified as an expert on handwriting. Mr. … “The rule is well established that a regular and complete attestation clause makes out a prima facie case of due execution of the will.