Case law

Tavernier v. Maes

242 Cal. App. 2d 532 · California Court of Appeal · May 27, 1966

“In this state the rule is clearly established that before the jury may be properly instructed on the doctrine [of assumption of risk] there must *541 be evidence not only that the plaintiff knew that he was stepping into … The citations given by defendant clearly support this view. In each, however, the known customs of game play some part in this conclusion.

People v. Reeves

109 Cal. Rptr. 2d 728 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 28, 2001

“the reliability of the method must be established, usually by expert testimony.” … Clearly, appellant’s demand for sexual gratification “induced” or “brought about” or “occasioned” the masturbation.

Gonzalez v. Santa Clara County Department of Social Services

223 Cal. App. 4th 72 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 21, 2014

On our own motion, we have ordered that all copies in possession of this court, the trial court, or the parties, be filed under seal. 4 Daughter flatly denied or materially qualified nearly every statement … A similar privilege is recognized in tort law: From 1931 to 1971, parents in California possessed a blanket immunity from liability to their children. (See Trudell v.

In Re Quinn

35 Cal. App. 3d 473 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 19, 1973

Erected on the bridge was a clearly visible sign which read “No Fishing or Loitering from Bridge.” … The rule with reference to the private ownership of fish and game is thus stated in the late case of In re Frank Phoedovius, 177 Cal. 238 , [ 170 Pac. 412 ]: Fish and game ‘can only become the subject of ownership in a qualified

County of Ventura v. Channel Islands Marina, Inc.

71 Cal. Rptr. 3d 762 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 30, 2008

The cause of action for conversion was later dismissed because it was barred by governmental immunity. … permit without a replacement plan, which CIM was clearly in no condition to satisfy.”

People v. Super. Ct. (Woodward)

California Court of Appeal · Mar 14, 2024

We agree that the factors asserted in the petition establish the inadequacy of the remedy in the direct appeal. … Any Government right to demand a jury verdict is limited to that afforded by [federal rule] (jury trial waivable with the consent of the Government) and, of course, can be qualified by authority granted the trial judge” by

Estate of Stokley

108 Cal. App. 3d 461 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 22, 1980

Stokley's estate, consisting of assets valued at approximately $616,000, was held in a revocable inter vivos trust established by her in 1953 and amended in 1962. … Thus, the 1976 order could not qualify as an order directing or allowing payment of an attorney's fee, for, as in Elftman, the executor had not even retained special counsel.

Brady v. Bayer Corp.

California Court of Appeal · Sep 7, 2018

Farm Raised Salmon Cases (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1077 [judgment in favor of salmon farmers reversed because “plaintiffs’ claims for deceptive marketing of food products are predicated on state laws establishing independent state … A reasonable consumer would not purchase multivitamins before determining what vitamins were in the formulation, and that information is clearly listed on the remainder of the One A Day® VitaCraves® label, along with the

People v. Ruff

California Court of Appeal · Feb 10, 2016

Regardless of when, during the course of the altercation, that statement was made, it and the video establish defendant’s intent from the outset was to steal a pack of cigarettes, and thus the intent to steal motivated defendant … A person who refuses to reform even after serving time in prison is clearly and significantly more dangerous than someone who merely possesses drugs for personal use or shoplifts.

HH Computer Systems, Inc. v. Pacific City Bank

231 Cal. App. 4th 221 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 6, 2014

But, as the Newman court pointed out, section 3405 establishes no conclusive presumption. … Super. 431, 443-444 [discussing level of documentation which might establish business’s authorization].)

People v. Brophy

122 Cal. App. 2d 638 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 19, 1954

In support of the court’s ruling respondent argues that “Even if he [Titherington] had been qualified as an expert witness as to the shooting ability of persons engaged in marksmanship contests, that would not support his … Clearly this argument of respondent goes to the weight of the evidence and not to its admissibility. Its weight was a matter for the jury to determine.

People v. Reichlein CA4/2

California Court of Appeal · May 19, 2014

Reichlein’s testimony, according to the prosecutor, was relevant and necessary to establish his dangerousness. … The challenging party must establish a witness’s incompetency by a preponderance of the evidence. [Citations.]

K.R. v. Super. Ct.

California Court of Appeal · Mar 30, 2023

As we noted above, we agree with K.R. that section 709, subdivision (h)(3) establishes a one-year maximum remediation period. … Afterward, he acknowledged that Ward “does seem qualified pursuant to the statute,” and that “she’s perfectly acceptable as an evaluator in this kind of case.”

People v. Martinez

California Court of Appeal · Oct 2, 2020

Chavez, who testified under a grant of use immunity, was asking Choi where he could get pills referred to as “Norcos.” … That the jury did not find that defendant violated section 186.22, subdivision (b) is not established on this record.

People v. Anzalone

45 Cal. Rptr. 3d 876 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 13, 2006

Where the intent to commit the crime is clearly shown, an act done toward the commission of the crime may be sufficient for an attempt even though that same act would be insufficient if the intent is not as clearly shown. … Anytime someone is within the zone of danger, whether it be one, two, three or twenty people, somebody indiscriminately shoots towards a crowd of people, everything in that zone of danger qualifies.

In re B.D.

California Court of Appeal · Jun 28, 2024

Mother said B.D., then three years old, was up to date with immunizations and physicals. B.D. received regular medical and dental care. Mother was attentive to C.D. and was bonding well with him. … Instead, “an inability to provide regular care and a substantial risk of serious physical harm or illness must be established on the facts of each case . . . .”

People v. Trejo CA2/4

California Court of Appeal · Feb 1, 2016

Appellant argues that “[b]ecause Penal Code section 666.5 is clearly a punishment section, the lower court should have noted appellant’s conviction to be for a violation of Vehicle Code, section 10851.” … The court concluded, “Unlawful taking/driving is thus not a qualifying offense under any circumstance.” (Id. at p. *5.)2 The Sixth Appellate District reached the opposite conclusion in People v.

People ex rel. Savage v. Los Angeles Trust Deed & Mortgage Exchange

190 Cal. App. 2d 66 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 14, 1961

Farrell, as qualifying officer, and the same Farrell, individually, also held a real estate broker’s license; on that date (September 17, 1959) the licenses of Exchange and David J. … Proc., § 527) ; since the addition of section 2015.5 to the Code of Civil Procedure, this method of establishing the existence of a fact is expressly authorized.

Aimo v. Mitchell

124 Cal. App. 497 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 25, 1932

an order of the above entitled court made and given, appointed the executrix of the estate of said decedent, and that said defendant ever since said day last above men *501 tioned has been and now is, the duly appointed, qualified … The construction of this section, as we have stated, is very clearly set forth in the case of Phillips v.

Anderson v. Superior Court

213 Cal. App. 3d 1321 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 14, 1989

The petitioners’ challenge to the court’s jurisdiction and authority to issue job search orders involves legal issues which are clearly presented on the face of the court’s supplemental orders. … II It is well established that due process issues arise when an AFDC recipient’s benefits may be adversely affected by state action. In Goldberg v.