Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

Filterscalctapp

10,000+ results

0.30s

  • 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.

    Cited 61 timesPublished
  • 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.

    Cited 15 timesPublished
  • People v. Gaines CA2/8

    California Court of Appeal · Nov 7, 2013

    We dispose of the petition by separate order. 5 established he did so. … Defendant has not persuaded us there is any basis for disturbing the jury’s verdict. “ ‘Before a judgment of conviction can be set aside for insufficiency of the evidence to support the trier of fact’s verdict, it must clearly

    Cited 0 timesUnpublished
  • 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.

    Cited 0 timesUnpublished
  • 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

    Cited 0 timesUnpublished
  • People v. Relkin

    6 Cal. App. 5th 1188 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 22, 2016

    On the other hand, the portion of the condition requiring that defendant report ―any contacts with . . . any peace officer‖ is vague and overbroad and does indeed leave one to guess what sorts of events and interactions qualify … We disagree with the People‘s argument that the condition is clearly not triggered when defendant says ―hello‖ to a police officer or attends an event at which police officers are present, but would be triggered if defendant

    Cited 81 timesPublished
  • 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.

    Cited 28 timesPublished
  • 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 . . .

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • People v. Jennings CA4/2

    California Court of Appeal · Dec 10, 2013

    And they can consider the immunity agreement. [¶] Also I think it goes to the special instruction that the People have requested, that whole issue about his immunity and the possibility that he could be found in contempt … It was also told to consider whether the witness was promised immunity or leniency.

    Cited 0 timesUnpublished
  • McGuire v. More-Gas Invistment, LLC

    220 Cal. App. 4th 512 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 15, 2013

    Summary judgment is granted when a moving party establishes the right to the entry of judgment as a matter of law. [Citation.] … We held that these charges, which did not qualify as proper liquidated damages pursuant to Civil Code section 1671, constituted illegal penalties.

    Cited 17 timesPublished
  • 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

    Cited 73 timesPublished
  • Contreras v. Dowling

    California Court of Appeal · Nov 18, 2016

    Contreras Cannot Establish a Probability of Prevailing on her Claim. … Clearly, that is not the situation before us. 15 As the Restatement explains, “The lawyer’s efforts in a representation must be for the benefit of the client [citation].

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Christiansen v. Roddy

    186 Cal. App. 3d 780 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 23, 1986

    It listed the lot size as 50 feet by 100 feet, but an attached scale drawing of the plant clearly showed the facility, with its attached loading dock, to be *784 greater than 50 feet wide. … Rptr. 628 ] states: "`It is well established in California, moreover, that such damages may include loss of anticipated profits where an established business has been injured.'"

    Overruled by Bily v. Arthur Young & Co., 3 Cal. 4th 370 (1992)Cited 33 timesPublished
  • Channell v. Anthony

    58 Cal. App. 3d 290 · California Court of Appeal · May 14, 1976

    This clearly represents the out-of-pocket loss under the established rules discussed herein. … VI appears clearly now to be moot. *319 VII. Were Compensatory Damages Improperly Calculated?

    Cited 23 timesPublished
  • People Ex Rel. Van De Kamp v. American Art Enterprises, Inc.

    75 Cal. App. 3d 523 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 30, 1977

    The court at pages 680 and 681 said: "[I]t may be true that the phraseology of the section is more consonant with the old-fashioned houses of ill fame of the `crib house' variety [citation], the legislative intent is clearly … [The nature of the business conducted by] American Art Enterprises [gives it] no special status or immunity." (Italics added.)

    Cited 9 timesPublished
  • 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.

    Cited 0 timesUnpublished
  • People v. James

    238 Cal. App. 4th 794 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 14, 2015

    Howard concluded that the aberrant behavior exhibited by appellant on February 19, 2012, was more likely the result of either drug-induced psychosis or drug-induced delirium: ―I DO NOT believe that [appellant‘s] established … Addiction to or abuse of drugs or intoxicants, by itself, does not qualify as legal insanity.

    Cited 25 timesPublished
  • Thomas v. City of Los Angeles

    California Court of Appeal · Apr 25, 2023

    “To qualify [Thomas’s] success as moderate is fallacious.” After establishing the lodestar amount, the trial court turned its attention to whether a multiplier should be applied. … The employee must establish that he is a “qualified individual,” i.e., an employee who can perform the essential functions of the job with or without reasonable accommodation. (Green v.

    Cited 0 timesUnpublished
  • Sierra Club v. County of Napa

    19 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 6, 2004

    Beringer proposes to establish a 1,424,400-square-foot facility on the site. 1,167,590 square feet of the facility will be used for warehousing and storing wine. … Subdivision B qualifies that provision, providing upon request at the hearing by the appellant or any interested party, and a showing of good cause, the board may permit additional evidence to be presented which could have

    Cited 54 timesPublished
  • Yaffee v. Skeen

    California Court of Appeal · Nov 26, 2024

    Mimran’s testimony established there was a reasonable certainty plaintiff would need a permanent DRG stimulator. … Macias (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 740, 752.) “ ‘While there is no clearly established definition of “reasonable certainty,” evidence of future detriment has been held sufficient based on expert medical opinion which considered

    Cited 0 timesPublished

Ask Donna

Ask Donna

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.