Case law

People v. Morales CA2/8

California Court of Appeal · Dec 20, 2013

Morales was identified as the perpetrator when DNA from a buccal swab1 established a cold hit through a DNA database linking him to the crimes. … As we have noted, the record here contains Morales’ criminal history which clearly show that he was on probation at the time of arrest. There is no further evidence that could have been introduced to defeat this theory.

Hardesty v. State Mining and Geology Board

California Court of Appeal · May 31, 2017

But the fact the Board may accept as true “material” which would not qualify as evidence in a court of law does not mean it was compelled to accept as true all material contained in Hardesty’s documents. … “The mining laws were neither a guarantee that mining would prove feasible nor a grant of immunity against local regulation, but simply an assurance that the ultimate original landowner, the United States, would not interfere

People v. Latten CA2/2

California Court of Appeal · Dec 16, 2024

It is equally well established that the Three Strikes law is not an enhancement; it is an alternative sentencing scheme for the current offense. [Citations.] … This deferential standard places the burden on appellant to clearly show that the sentencing decision was “so irrational or arbitrary that no reasonable person could agree with it.” (Id. at p. 377.)

Garat v. City of Riverside

2 Cal. App. 4th 259 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 31, 1991

Following its rulings on the substantive issues raised by the parties, the trial court further ruled that Garat qualified for an award of attorney fees under the “private attorney general” provisions of section 1021.5 of … This broad-reaching language in section 65700, subdivision (a), leads us to conclude that the “mandatory elements” of section 65302 are to be understood and construed as being qualified by the other applicable provisions

Sinclair v. Aquarius Electronics, Inc.

42 Cal. App. 3d 216 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 2, 1974

The instant case makes it unquestionable that plaintiff’s idea clearly qualifies as a trade secret under either or both of the foregoing definitions. … First, it is well established that a point raised in the reply brief for the first time will not be considered by the court unless good reason is shown for failure to present such point before (Boyd v.

People v. Mendoza CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · Nov 25, 2024

First, he contends the prosecutor failed to “clearly identify the relevant qualifying offense [Mendoza] had committed in the uncharged acts.” … Indeed, the statute enumerates the specific crimes that qualify. (Id., subd. (d)(1)(A).)

Sierra Vista Regional Medical Center v. Bonta'

107 Cal. App. 4th 237 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 19, 2003

The state determined plaintiff had wrongfully sought reimbursement for services which did not qualify as neonatal intensive care services. … It was reimbursed based solely on the rates established in the provider agreement.

City of Montebello v. Vasquez CA2/1

California Court of Appeal · Apr 30, 2014

The court then determined appellants’ legislative actions and votes qualified as protected activity, but found the City established a probability of prevailing on the merits because the evidence that Athens had contributed … LaMarche (2003) 31 Cal.4th 728, 735 [“The Legislature clearly knows how to create an exemption from the anti-SLAPP statute when it wishes to do so”].)

Standard American Dredging Co. v. City of Oakland

30 Cal. App. 237 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 31, 1916

The one to four line is described as a necessary factor in establishing the limit of the slope and the exterior boundary of the excavation for which payment was to be made; and is not defined or described or established and … The findings are so drawn, we think, as clearly to present the question at issue.

People v. Venegas

California Court of Appeal · Sep 11, 2014

Estrada also argued that Detective Sumner was not qualified as an expert and his testimony lacked foundation. … This is more than sufficient to qualify Detective Sumner as an expert and to provide a foundation for his opinion.

Betkouski v. Superior Court

34 Cal. App. 117 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 14, 1917

But the existence of this charter provision has nothing whatever to do with the question whether the sections of the Penal Code may be invoiced to establish the method of a removal from office the cause for which is prescribed … by section 18 of the charter, for the last-mentioned section clearly and fully meets the challenge laid down in section 196 by providing, in effect, that one guilty of the acts denounced by its provisions shall not “serve

Gunther v. Alaska Airlines, Inc.

California Court of Appeal · Dec 1, 2021

The California Supreme Court explained that these employees are entitled to section 226(a)-compliant wage statements if California qualifies as the employee’s principal place of work. … “Wage and hour laws constitute areas of traditional state regulation, although that fact alone does not ‘immunize’ state employment laws from preemption if Congress in fact contemplated their preemption.” (Dilts v.

Redding v. City of Los Angeles

81 Cal. App. 2d 888 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 17, 1947

Harrison testified also that the police department had very few men with licenses from the maritime commission as qualified officers. … Appellant was accused of disregarding a specific charter inhibition and the charge was established.

CAL. ADVOCATES FOR NURSING HOME REFORM v. Bonta

129 Cal. Rptr. 2d 228 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 7, 2003

Prior to 1993, states were permitted, but not required, to establish estate recovery programs. … The Medicaid Act requires state agencies such as DHS to establish procedures under which it shall waive estate recovery claims if recovery "would work an undue hardship as determined on the basis of criteria established by

Jorgensen v. Dahlstrom

53 Cal. App. 2d 322 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 8, 1942

last cited it is said in that regard: “When a presumption of undue influence is raised by showing the existence of a confidential relationship, coupled with activity ... a prima facie showing of undue influence is thereby established … The evidence clearly shows that Mr.

People v. Gaulden

36 Cal. App. 3d 942 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 9, 1974

The facts of this case clearly show a man caught in the act of slaying a prison official. … qualified by the subsequently given instructions on specific intent (“willful, deliberate and premeditated”) or “lying in wait” in order to convict of first degree murder.

Koehler v. Superior Court

181 Cal. App. 4th 1153 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 5, 2010

Each of the following must be established: “• Facts establishing court’s jurisdiction (e.g., personal service or subpoena, validity of court order allegedly violated, etc.); “• Defendant’s knowledge of the order disobeyed … Clearly this is a third trial. It’s a separate trial. It is not a continuing trial; it is a third one.

People v. Superior Court (Steven S.)

119 Cal. App. 3d 162 · California Court of Appeal · May 14, 1981

The Legislature clearly had the power to establish the presumption, and we perceive no constitutional defects in the statute. *178 Evaluation of the Evidence in Light of the Presumption The basic fact from which the presumption … The evidence clearly does not overcome the presumption of unfitness on this criterion.

PrediWave Corp. v. Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP

179 Cal. App. 4th 1204 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 2, 2009

This includes qualifying acts committed by attorneys in representing clients in litigation. (See, e.g., Chavez v. Mendoza (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 1083, 1086 [ 114 Cal.Rptr.2d 825 ]; Dowling v. … This is vastly different from a third party suing an attorney for petitioning activity, which clearly could have a chilling effect.” (Id. at p. 1540.)

Hypertouch, Inc. v. Valueclick, Inc.

192 Cal. App. 4th 805 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 10, 2011

Specifically, the statute does not contain “qualifying language such as ‘knowingly’ or ‘intentionally[,]’ . . . … Respondents have made no effort to explain why a reasonable trier of fact could not conclude that many of the subject lines at issue here, such as those offering a free gift card with no qualifying language, would be likely