Case law

Harris v. Luntumbuez CA2/7

California Court of Appeal · May 16, 2025

Powell (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 955, 971 [“[S]ection 47, subdivision (b) provides absolute immunity for publications and statements made in an ‘official proceeding authorized by law.’ ”].) … The 8 privilege bars all tort liability based on a qualifying statement, except the tort of malicious prosecution. (Hagberg v.

People v. Petruzo

13 Cal. App. 569 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 13, 1910

It is clearly hearsay, as the witness necessarily testifies to what the interpreter declares that the other party said. (People v. Ah Yute, 56 Cal. 119 ; People v. John, 137 *575 Cal. 220, [ 69 Pac. 1063 ].) … It is true that “the facts, circumstances or declarations which grow out of the principal fact in question which are contemporaneous with it and serve to illustrate, qualify or explain it constitute the res gestae (Gillam

Currin v. Currin

125 Cal. App. 2d 644 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 1, 1954

In decisions too numerous to mention, it has been said that the trial judge having heard the evidence, observed the witnesses, their demeanor, attitude, candor or lack of candor, is best qualified to pass upon and determine … Here again, we are confronted with the question of the discretion of the trial judge which we have heretofore discussed, and of our inability to disturb his conclusion on the issue of custody unless it clearly be shown that

People v. Fulton

121 Cal. Rptr. 2d 828 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 1, 2002

The trial court thus found the entire attorney fees qualified as an economic loss within the meaning of section 1202.4, subdivision (f)(3), and that the 25 percent contingency fee was reasonable. … Further, it is the defendant's burden to make a record showing the portion of the attorney fees that are not recoverable because they can be clearly attributed solely to a nonrecoverable category of damages.

Picayune Rancheria etc. v. North Fork Rancheria etc.

California Court of Appeal · Dec 16, 2025

Enough valid signatures were obtained on their petition to qualify the referendum for the November 4, 2014 General Election ballot. (Id. at p. 205.) … (See Desjardins, Tribal Sovereignty & Sovereign Immunity in Bankruptcy (2024) 101 Wash. U.L. Rev. 1735, 1740; see also, Styne v.

Koi Nation of Northern Cal. v. City of Clearlake CA1/2

California Court of Appeal · Mar 30, 2026

“Closely spaced trench probes established well-defined site limits” encompassing about 3,000 square yards (about 0.62 acres). … For those propositions, the City cited decisions establishing such an analytic framework for the analogous CEQA category of historical resources. (Valley Advocates v.

People v. Super. Ct. (Ortiz)

California Court of Appeal · Jul 28, 2022

Superior Court (Zamudio) (2000) 23 Cal.4th 183, 199 (Zamudio) [“We do not presume that the Legislature intends, when it enacts a statute, to overthrow long- established principles of law unless such intention is clearly … “The rules we must apply when faced with two irreconcilable statutes are well established.

Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc. v. Contractors' State License Board

41 Cal. App. 4th 1592 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 26, 1996

found in the construction business, and may limit the field and scope of the operations of a licensed contractor to those in which he or she is classified and qualified to engage, as defined by Sections 7055, 7056, 7057 … Toward this end, we reiterate certain well-established rules of statutory interpretation.

Hedayati v. Interinsurance Exchange of the Auto. Club

California Court of Appeal · Aug 11, 2021

Auto Club conveyed no unequivocal intent to immediately settle what was clearly an excess policy claim in its insured’s best interests. … Auto Club relies on Graciano to claim a “safe harbor” cloak of immunity based on its October 31 offer; that reliance is misplaced.

People v. Caldwell

102 Cal. App. 3d 461 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 22, 1980

Here nothing in the record clearly shows the prospective jurors to have been biased. … In this witness’ opinion a psychomotor seizure cannot last for a period of days or weeks, but he admitted that some qualified experts disagree on this point.

People v. Neal CA5

California Court of Appeal · Sep 24, 2021

leading to his convictions as follows: “On June 6, 1982, [petitioner] and others [including two men (Aleo and Ford), charged and convicted in a separate trial, and Sharon Poma (who was given immunity … Second, to amend the felony-murder rule, the bill added section 189, subdivision (e): “A participant in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of [qualifying felonies] in which a death occurs is liable

People v. Corbi

California Court of Appeal · Oct 25, 2024

‘A person is qualified to testify as an expert if he [or 12 she] has special knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education sufficient to qualify him [or her] as an expert … Of course, a “ ‘clearly invalid and unreliable’ expert opinion” (ibid.) has no evidentiary value and is not helpful to the jury. (Jennings, at p. 1117.)

Madera Community Hospital v. County of Madera

155 Cal. App. 3d 136 · California Court of Appeal · May 1, 1984

The duty of a county to provide hospital and medical services to all indigent county residents is clearly established. (City of Lomita v. County of Los Angeles (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 671, 673 [ 196 Cal.Rptr. 221 ].) … injury or illness, at any health facility licensed under this chapter that maintains and operates an emergency department to provide emergency services to the public when such health facility has appropriate facilities and qualified

Brock v. Superior Court

109 Cal. App. 2d 594 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 5, 1952

All of the members so appointed have qualified and accepted such appointments and are now members of said advisory board. … that in determining, the validity of the milk marketing plan put in effect by the Director of Agriculture, the procedure for establishing which was somewhat similar to that required to establish the marketing plan under

In re A.H. CA5

California Court of Appeal · Apr 9, 2026

And, the term “ ‘ “dangerous or deadly weapon” ’ ” has “a plain, commonsense[, and clearly established] meaning: it prohibit[s] possession of items specifically designed as weapons, and other items not specifically designed … Given this clearly established and commonsense meaning of the term “dangerous or deadly weapon,” the challenged probation condition does not “encapsulate those everyday household items that could be used as a weapon against

Freitas v. Loberg

100 Cal. App. 3d 882 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 9, 1980

The director claims that the statutory scheme of conservatorship and guardianship for developmentally disabled persons as contained in section 416 et seq. of the Health and Safety Code clearly requires reversal. … The preferences established in Section 1753 of the Probate Code for appointment of a conservator shall not apply.

Player v. Geo. M. Brewster & Son, Inc.

18 Cal. App. 3d 526 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 28, 1971

The Facts Brewster, the New Jersey corporation, at all times relevant to these proceedings was qualified and licensed to do business as a general contractor in California. … It was executed in August 1960 and covered the mixing and delivery of concrete including the establishment of a “batch plant.”

Baxter v. Bock

California Court of Appeal · May 24, 2016

In the context of judicial recusal, ‘[p]otential bias and prejudice must clearly be established by an objective standard.’ [Citations.] ‘Judges, like all human beings, have widely varying experiences and backgrounds. … It is well- established that the principles of due process do not extend to private arbitration.

Jensen v. Hewlett-Packard Co.

14 Cal. App. 4th 958 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 30, 1993

. *965 Clearly, there is a legitimate raison d’etre for such records, and management has an unquestioned obligation to keep them. … The Foley court cautions it is poor policy to create an atmosphere of fear of liability which stifles management from exercising its “ ‘fundamental prerogatives . . . : to control the workplace and to retain only the best-qualified

Balsam v. Trancos, Inc.

203 Cal. App. 4th 1083 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 24, 2012

Second, the court did not decide the use of a domain name that failed to clearly identify Trancos violated the statute. … Trancos fails to establish the court abused its discretion.