Case law

In Re Marriage of Powers

218 Cal. App. 3d 626 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 6, 1990

This is evident from the reference in the uncodified section of section 4800.8 to the two judicial decisions that had established both aspects of the rule, Waite v. Waite, supra, 6 Cal.3d 461 , and Benson v. … Clearly, the equitable dissolution of community property qualifies as a matter of statewide concern. *646 The order is affirmed. Respondent to have its costs. Respondent’s request for sanctions is denied.

People v. Tamez CA5

California Court of Appeal · Jul 28, 2015

He was granted immunity in exchange for his testimony. 5 Steven was born in February 1996. At the time of retrial, he was 17 years old. 6 At retrial, Steven was asked to define “porno.” … Qualifying offenses include sodomy “in violation of paragraph (2) or (3) of subdivision (c) … of [s]ection 286” (id., subd.

Blake v. Aetna Life Insurance

99 Cal. App. 3d 901 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 26, 1979

The evidence clearly indicates that in pursuit of this investigation Aetna made numerous attempts to obtain information and cooperation from plaintiff and plaintiffs attorney, all to no avail. … In addition to establishing that Aetna’s handling of the claim here was reasonable as a humane matter, the facts also establish as a matter of law that Aetna acted reasonably in withholding payment on the claim.

Smith v. Covell

100 Cal. App. 3d 947 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 11, 1980

Such conduct is clearly impermissible. Jurors cannot, without violation of their oath, receive or communicate to fellow jurors information from sources outside the evidence in the case. (People v. … Honeycutt, 20 Cal.3d 150, 156 [ 141 Cal.Rptr. 698 , 570 P.2d 1050 ], the Supreme Court repeated this long-established rule: “[A] presumption of prejudice arises from any juror misconduct [which] presumption may be rebutted

Pacific Indemnity Co. v. American Mutual Insurance

28 Cal. App. 3d 983 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 27, 1972

Although the foregoing authorities establish the proposition for which plaintiff has cited them, they do not assist in establishing that the defendant insurer contracted to indemnify the Regents for any of the obligations … It does, however, impose approximately 87 percent of the liabilities involved upon the insurer of the person (Farrow) who under the Governmental Tort Liability Act is immune from such liabilities.” ( 20 Cal.App.3d at p. 846

Habitat & Watershed Caretakers v. City of Santa Cruz

213 Cal. App. 4th 1277 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 19, 2013

“Seeps, springs and depressional wetlands that may qualify as jurisdictional wetlands occur in the North Campus area, usually in small patches (less than 500 square feet). … “CEQA establishes no categorical legal imperative as to the scope of alternatives to be analyzed in an EIR.

People v. Aragon

154 Cal. App. 2d 646 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 23, 1957

For all we know, he may have been a charlatan or a blundering incompetent, or a fully qualified expert. … In either situation, where the case is closely balanced and guilt has not been so clearly established as to render it improbable that the harmful effect of the misconduct may have turned the scales against the accused, such

Cuevas v. City of Tulare CA5

California Court of Appeal · May 20, 2026

The district court granted summary judgment on all federal claims brought by Cuevas on qualified immunity grounds, and the court declined to continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction over her state law claims. … The court explained: “Ojeda’s actions clearly indicated his intent to harm the officers.

People v. Hubbart

106 Cal. Rptr. 2d 490 · California Court of Appeal · May 8, 2001

In contrast, a commitment under the MDO law is contingent upon the fact that the person is serving a prison term for the qualifying offense or offenses. (Pen. … Defendant admitted committing each offense, and the jury was clearly instructed that it was to determine beyond a reasonable doubt whether defendant fit the criteria for commitment under the SVPÁ, not whether defendant committed

People v. Washington

25 Cal. Rptr. 3d 459 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 28, 2005

The applicable precedents reveal that brief movement of a robbery victim within business premises does not qualify as aggravated kidnapping. d. The People’s argument to the contrary is not persuasive. … Clearly, that is not the law. The discussion in Martinez illustrates this point.

Cal. Build. Ind. Assn. v. Bay Area Air Qual. Mgmt. Dist.

California Court of Appeal · Aug 13, 2013

Code, § 21083.) “ ‘In interpreting CEQA, we accord the Guidelines great weight except where they are clearly unauthorized or erroneous.’ [Citation.]” (Save Tara v. … Because we agree with the District the Thresholds do not qualify as a project, we need not consider the District’s alternative claim that the commonsense exemption to CEQA applies. II.

Western Land Office, Inc. v. Cervantes

175 Cal. App. 3d 724 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 13, 1985

The burden of proving that purpose clearly was on the tenant, since no landlord could be expected to prove that he acted with a retaliatory motive. … This portion of the instructions placed upon the landlord the burden not only of establishing the ground upon which it acted, but also *744 of establishing its motivation.

Child v. Warne

194 Cal. App. 2d 623 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 9, 1961

However, the statute clearly indicates that this is not the sole source of such information. … The motive which prompted this action would not affect its established nature.

Morris v. Harper

114 Cal. Rptr. 2d 62 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 31, 2001

In the proceedings below, Harper admitted that the CYA provided inpatient health and mental health services in a total of 11 of its institutions qualifying as correctional treatment centers. … Where a statute or ordinance clearly defines the specific duties or course of conduct that a governing body must take, that course of conduct becomes mandatory and eliminates any element of discretion.

ELSENBERG v. Alameda Newspapers, Inc.

88 Cal. Rptr. 2d 802 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 20, 1999

The bare possibility that the proceeding might be instituted is not to be used as a cloak to provide immunity for defamation when the possibility is not seriously considered.” … Clearly, and as a matter of law, Eisenberg cannot establish that the statement in Hunt’s article that previous reporting had been “inaccurate” was provably false.

Ware v. Retirement Board

65 Cal. App. 2d 781 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 21, 1944

Rosette was no longer a member after she ceased to be in city-service for more than five years, she cannot qualify for retirement.” (App. Op. Br. 27.) The fact that Mrs. … The section quite clearly refers to the status of an employee at the time his disability arises, and not to his status when his application is filed.

Pacific-Southern Mortgage Trust Co. v. Insurance Co.

166 Cal. App. 3d 703 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 10, 1985

Upon the default, it was established there would be no repayment of the loan. … No further investigation was necessary to establish the claim was covered since Davis was clearly covered under the director/trustee rider attached to the bond, and further, the notice was timely (provided not long after

Div. of Occupational Saf. & Health v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

California Court of Appeal · Jun 18, 2026

Alorica Inc. (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 60, 66 [Attorney General had authority to subpoena records to determine if corporate entity qualified as a debt collector under the Rosenthal Act].) … Had the Legislature intended to impose a time limit on OSHA’s investigatory powers or enforcement authority, it would have said so clearly and explicitly.

Westlands Water Dist. v. North Coast Rivers Alliance CA5

California Court of Appeal · Aug 5, 2024

The declaration was not evidence of an inability to retain, or the impracticability of retaining, qualified local counsel. It did not even establish that NCRA ever attempted to contact any Fresno attorneys. … Due to the vague billing entries, the time spent on research was not clearly justified.

People v. Chung

237 Cal. App. 4th 462 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 4, 2015

Farnam (2002) 28 Cal.4th 107, 162 [defendant forfeited claim that expert was not qualified to testify on one topic where his objection was to expert’s qualification on a different topic].) … “‘Error regarding a witness’s qualifications as an expert will be found only if the evidence shows that the witness “‘“clearly lacks qualification as an expert.”’”’ [Citations.]” (People v.