Case law

People v. Sindaha CA4/3

California Court of Appeal · Jul 31, 2014

As to Sindaha’s assertion the qualifying sexual offenses were too remote to establish he currently suffers from a mental disorder, we disagree. … Sindaha concedes his 1985 and 1995 convictions properly establish the qualifying prior sexual offenses, but he complains they are of little if any evidentiary value on the issue of his current mental state.

People v. Bolourchi

California Court of Appeal · Jun 28, 2024

It is well established that, to comply with the consent law, a “ ‘driver should clearly and unambiguously manifest the consent required by the law. … A wrongful refusal to cooperate with law enforcement officers does not qualify for such protection.

People v. Roth

261 Cal. App. 2d 430 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 23, 1968

Gomez, 229 Cal.App.2d 781, 783 [ 40 Cal.Rptr. 616 ],) Clearly holding the inventory made by Officer Lee to be a search, the superior court concluded that it was illegal within the doctrine of Preston v. … Webb, 66 Cal.2d 107 [ 56 Cal.Rptr. 902 , 424 P.2d 342 ]) have distinguished Preston and Burke and qualified language therein which suggested an inflexible requirement of a warrant unless a search of the vehicle was incident

Goldman v. Franchise Tax Board

202 Cal. App. 4th 1193 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 23, 2012

According to the Goldmans’ construction, the second *1202 sentence of section 18622, subdivision (a) qualifies the first so that changes need not be reported unless the taxpayer must pay more in taxes following the date of … In fact, self-assessment in an amended tax return does not establish the tax payable for any given year.

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.

People v. Arechar CA3

California Court of Appeal · Jun 13, 2016

On appeal, “ ‘[t]he burden is on the party attacking the sentence to clearly show that the sentencing decision was irrational or arbitrary. [Citation.] … First, ‘ “[t]he burden is on the party attacking the sentence to clearly show that the sentencing decision was irrational or arbitrary. [Citation.]

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.)

Davis v. Fresno Unified School Dist.

California Court of Appeal · Nov 24, 2020

Disgorgement qualifies as effective relief and, therefore, the taxpayer’s action part of this lawsuit is not moot. … time and in the court specified by Section 860 to determine the validity of such matter.”10 When the 60-day period passes without an interested person bringing an action under section 863, the agency’s decision becomes immune

Vandorien v. Dept. of Transportation CA3

California Court of Appeal · Sep 27, 2023

The trial court granted the state’s motion for summary judgment on the basis that it was immunized from liability for public works built according to a preapproved design (design immunity). The appellate court reversed. … It concluded that the state had failed to establish a prerequisite for design immunity, and, in any event, the plaintiffs were entitled to pursue their claim for failure to warn because design immunity is limited to a design

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. 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

Green Valley Landowners Ass'n v. City of Vallejo

241 Cal. App. 4th 425 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 16, 2015

The plaintiff must clearly and specifically set forth . . . factual allegations that sufficiently state all required elements of that cause of action. [Citations.] … In deciding whether the establishment of a health care system qualified as a “ ‘municipal affair,’ ” the Supreme Court observed, “In the early stages of municipal home rule in California, the charter prevailed only where

Regents of the University of California v. Superior Court

222 Cal. App. 4th 383 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 19, 2013

that the files “(1) qualify as ‘public records’ and (2) were in the possession” of the city. … “As to the Board, to prevail PMSA must establish that the files (1) qualify as public records and (2) were in the possession of the Board. [Citation.]

Community Redevelopment Agency v. Matkin

220 Cal. App. 3d 1087 · California Court of Appeal · May 24, 1990

They maintain the purpose of the amendment “was to clearly establish two things: (1) That the date from which the 30-day minimum time period for filing final demands is to be measured is the date of the trial on the issue … Although a property owner’s time spent in preparing and presenting testimony does not qualify for compensation (County of Madera v.

Conrad v. Bank of America

45 Cal. App. 4th 133 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 9, 1996

That exchange establishes nothing more than a willingness to consider future loan applications and does not establish a fraudulent promise to make a loan. (See Kruse v. … Puglia, P.J., and Morrison, J., concurred. 1 A maritime chassis is a skeletal trailer onto which a cargo container from a ship may be placed for transport over land. 2 In order to qualify as a woman-owned business under federal

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

Nisei Farmers League v. CA Labor & Workforce Dev. Agency

California Court of Appeal · Jan 4, 2019

Rather, our sole function is to evaluate [it] legally in the light of established constitutional standards.’ ” (Calfarm Ins. Co. v. … A request for an advisory opinion does not qualify. (Ibid.; see Selby Realty Co. v. City of 6 We note that in Oman v.

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. Olivares CA2/2

California Court of Appeal · Oct 10, 2024

This barely qualifies as issue spotting; it certainly is not advocacy. 2  FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND I. … (c) [expert testimony “may” be used to establish unavailability].)

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.