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.

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

People v. Hannah

51 Cal. App. 4th 1335 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 30, 1996

Clearly, one of Sandoval’s primary concerns when he asked defendant and the other individual to remain seated was the protection of himself and the other officers: “Q. … However, defendant’s reliance on his status as a “mere visitor” to immunize him from any police detention is misplaced.

Aebli v. Board of Education

62 Cal. App. 2d 706 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 2, 1944

But the letter clearly indicated the board’s intent that she should be reduced in rating for the future. … The above cited cases all so qualify the general power of the administrative agencies to fix the salaries of permanent teachers.

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.

Parada v. East Coast Transport Inc.

California Court of Appeal · Apr 1, 2021

Dynamex held that a three-factor test (the so-called “ABC” test) should be used to determine if a worker qualifies as an independent contractor for purposes of California’s wage orders (which establish many entitlements for … Appellants therefore 4 The court in Cal Cartage also noted that the statutory scheme that the Legislature enacted in 2020 clearly does not prohibit motor carriers from using independent contractors because it establishes

Miller v. National American Life Insurance

54 Cal. App. 3d 331 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 14, 1976

Although (as appellant notes) mere denial without reasonable cause is itself insufficient to establish fraud, preexisting intent to so act is fraudulent intent. … In its order conditionally granting a new trial on the issue of punitive damages, the court below stated as its ground that the sum awarded was “grossly excessive and that the jury clearly should have rendered a different

ABBA Rubber Co. v. Seaquist

235 Cal. App. 3d 1 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 16, 1991

A customer list is one of the types of information which can qualify as a trade secret. (American Paper & Packaging Products, Inc. v. Kirgan (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 1318, 1323-1324 [ 228 Cal.Rptr. 713 ].) … Any preliminary or permanent injunction issued in this case in the future shall both clearly and narrowly define the scope of the proscribed activities, in accordance with the views expressed in this opinion.

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

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency v. King

233 Cal. App. 3d 1365 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 6, 1991

In reversing, the Fourth Circuit held that there is no black-letter rule which immunizes a land-use ordinance from a takings challenge simply because it contains an amortization period. … The second is clearly commercial. 32 Defendants did not stipulate to this but acknowledged that TRPA would present evidence to this effect.

People v. Lyons CA2/6

California Court of Appeal · Jan 7, 2015

Although the record does not disclose whether or not [the detective] made any representations to that effect, his admitted conduct spoke as clearly as words – first by surrendering to [them his] own private office so that … "'A person is qualified to testify as an expert if he has special knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education sufficient to qualify him as an expert on the subject to which his testimony relates[.]'"

Madian v. City of Stanton CA4/3

California Court of Appeal · Jun 17, 2014

But, said the trial judge, respondeat superior clearly does not apply to section 1983 causes of action. … That document clearly left issues for further consideration beyond mere compliance.

People v. Super. Ct. CA1/3

California Court of Appeal · Oct 30, 2014

Because the law clearly establishes that service in an alternative work release program does not qualify for section 4019 credits, and the record in these proceedings reflects that the trial court left the award of such credits

People v. Nielsen

California Court of Appeal · Mar 30, 2026

However, defendant’s sentencing submissions clearly conveyed that his childhood trauma led to his drug addiction and crimes. … There, sections 1170.9 and 1170.91 obligated the trial court to consider qualifying service-related PTSD as a mitigating circumstance in making discretionary sentencing choices.

In Re Marriage of Starr

189 Cal. App. 4th 277 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 30, 2010

She testified that because of her poor credit history, the lender recommended she agree to the quitclaim so she and Ron could qualify for a better interest rate. … The Court of Appeal held that the trial court erred by refusing to apply the presumption, because the husband clearly gained an advantage when the wife quitclaimed her interest to him.

People v. Valles CA4/2

California Court of Appeal · Oct 11, 2024

It found the killing was “clearly within the spirit of what the legislature was after when they enacted [section] 12022.53, specifically [section] 12022.53(d).” … That finding is made only after a defendant has proven the presence of at least one of the qualifying mitigating circumstances. (§ 1385(c)(2).)

Friends of Sierra Madre v. SIERRA MADRE

90 Cal. Rptr. 2d 855 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 1, 2000

There was no evidentiary hearing below to establish that any of the 29 properties were not historically or culturally significant. … The circumstances here clearly are distinguishable from those in Lee v.

In Re RW

172 Cal. App. 4th 1268 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 26, 2009

R[.W.] has had behavior problems at school at least since kindergarten when first qualified for Special Education due to Emotional Disturbance. … Mother argues the evidence was insufficient to establish an order limiting parents' educational rights was necessary to protect R.W. Mother contends the motion was "based on the simple fact that . . .

Citron v. Fields

30 Cal. App. 2d 51 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 20, 1938

However, annual net income may be in such an amount that, when related to the amount claimed, proof thereof would establish the ability to pay the claim. … of the customs and practice of the profession in fixing the reasonable value of services in Hemet and Riverside County, the community where the services were performed and where the respondent practiced, did not properly qualify

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