Case law

Coon v. Nicola

17 Cal. App. 4th 1225 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 10, 1993

The agreement itself carried no buried terms; all terms were laid out very clearly in the arbitration agreement form. … Therefore, the contract fails to qualify as a contract of adhesion.

People v. Bunas

California Court of Appeal · Jun 14, 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.

People v. ALAS

122 Cal. Rptr. 2d 467 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 2, 2002

Indeed, we think an alternative, innocent combination of factors is as likely to have produced Juror No. 3's responses as anything qualifying as "misconduct" on this record. … Indeed, it pretty clearly suggests the contrary. He answered "yes" when asked if he would follow the law as instructed by the court, "as I understood it ...."

People v. Smith CA2/8

California Court of Appeal · Feb 25, 2025

“Testimony” is a solemn declaration or affirmation made for the purpose of establishing or proving some fact. (Id. at p. 51.) … An application of the factors set forth in Chism shows that Scott’s statement was clearly not testimonial. In People v.

County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County

170 Cal. App. 4th 1301 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 5, 2009

As required by the CII Act, these rules establish procedures regarding: . . . [f] . . . … to County residents clearly outweighed CFAC’s hypothetical interest.”

People v. Guess

69 Cal. Rptr. 3d 652 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 21, 2007

Emily refused to testify at trial, even under a grant of use immunity. Dra.'s First Interview Dra. was a runaway from her mother and from juvenile hall in Sacramento. … Seijas, supra , 36 Cal.4th 291 at page 303 as establishing that "The recent decision of Crawford v.

Utility Cost Management v. INDIAN WELLS VALLEY WATER DISTRICT

98 Cal. Rptr. 2d 100 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 18, 2000

The complaint clearly challenges the periodic increases that have been levied. … We also would have to ignore the case law interpreting the Mitigation Fee Act and the legislative history of that Act which clearly establish that no cause of action for a refund of a capacity charge is encompassed in the

In re Vargas

83 Cal. App. 4th 1125 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 27, 2000

“Although [the decision to plead guilty pursuant to a plea bargain instead of proceeding to trial is a decision ultimately] made by the defendant, it is the attorney, not the client, who is particularly qualified to make … We stated that Attorney Vargas’s representation was “clearly deficient,” falling “far below an objective standard of reasonableness under prevailing professional norms.

Guthrie v. Transamerica Life Ins. Co. CA1/1

California Court of Appeal · May 27, 2026

In addition, the Trendsetter LB product provides two other accelerated death benefits, for qualifying chronic and critical illnesses. … Rather, as in Kaldenbach, liability could not be established on a class-wide basis.

People v. Clem

78 Cal. App. 4th 346 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 17, 2000

Since the risks of great bodily harm and mental illness were not inherently life threatening, the offense did not qualify as a predicate for felony murder. {Ibid.) Burroughs was followed in People v. … The offense thus falls squarely within the established boundaries of the rule. IV. The judgment is affirmed. Poché, J., and Sepulveda, J., concurred.

People v. Rincon CA6

California Court of Appeal · Jan 16, 2026

Rincon’s counsel argued that Rincon’s condition had developed over a number of years, and his mental state in 2017 clearly reflected that he was symptomatic, particularly since he was found to be incompetent at the time. … As both parties note, under the current version of section 1001.36 as amended in 2022, if a defendant establishes that he has been diagnosed with a specified mental disorder within the last five years by a qualified mental

Kiesling v. Noon CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · Sep 20, 2023

The trial court’s fee determination “ ‘ “will not be disturbed unless the appellate court is convinced that it is clearly wrong.” ’ ” (Id. at p. 1132.) … Instead, Noon has abstracted from Kiesling’s complaint only “a broad and amorphous public interest” that is insufficient to qualify for anti-SLAPP protection.

People v. Cortez

California Court of Appeal · Jun 20, 2018

The issue here is whether the offenses qualified as lesser included offenses under the accusatory pleading test by virtue of language in the information describing the overt acts. … Section 12022.53, subdivision (a), thus clearly and unambiguously includes conspiracy to commit murder.

Center for Biological Diversity v. County of San Bernardino

California Court of Appeal · May 19, 2016

“Abuse of discretion is established if the agency has not proceeded in a manner required by law or if the determination or decision is not supported by substantial evidence.” (Pub. … As noted in the final EIR, “State agencies, such as [Santa Margarita], have sovereign immunity from local regulation, such as the County’s local building and zoning ordinances, unless such immunity has been waived.

Fuller v. Department of Transportation

California Court of Appeal · Aug 20, 2019

“Why is the vista point clearly an intersection? . . . People drive in and out . . . . It must be striped. If it’s not, that’s a dangerous condition.” That is how the case was pled and presented to the jury. … Appellant did not try to qualify Officer Budrow as an expert witness.

Wilbanks v. Wolk

17 Cal. Rptr. 3d 497 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 17, 2004

If the defendant establishes a prima facie case, then the burden shifts to the plaintiff to establish ‘ “a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim,” ’ i.e., ‘make a prima facie showing of facts which would … The rule is qualified in that the repetition of the defamatory statement, such as in a new edition of a book or newspaper, may give rise to a new cause of action with a new accrual date. (Traditional Cat, at p. 401.)

REGENCY HEALTH SERVICES v. Superior Court

76 Cal. Rptr. 2d 95 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 24, 1998

Clearly the guardian ad litem is not the real party in interest; no judgment can be entered either for or against the guardian. (Cf. Code Civ. Proc., § 367; Sarroxino v. … The right of a party to propound interrogatories to "any other party to the action" is not qualified or limited by a proviso that the "other party" must not be a ward.

Bemis v. People

109 Cal. App. 2d 253 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 15, 1952

The state, by such evidence, established a prima facie case of employment. This placed the burden of establishing an independent contractor relationship on Bemis Enterprise. … On its face the type of lease there executed appeared, even more clearly than the subleases here involved, to create an employer-employee relationship.

People v. Sohrab

59 Cal. App. 4th 89 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 13, 1997

“The Court: Well, I think I need to see if you’re qualified to do it on your own, make sure you give up all your rights that you’ve asked about, and then you can proceed on your own. “The Defendant: Yes, we’ll do that. … This Panel system was established in 1992 through the Chief Justice’s authority to cross-assign judges.

Stewart v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal · Oct 12, 2017

Mary also established the following background facts and occurrences: Dr. Denton thought a pacemaker “was clearly indicated” for Carter due to “long [cardiac] pauses” requiring intervention by a specialist. … Mary’s actions qualified as reckless.