Case law

People v. Leonard CA4/1

228 Cal. App. 4th 465 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 18, 2014

At trial, Jordan and Hanson testified for the prosecution pursuant to grants of immunity. … [citation], in light of a record that demonstrates that the trial court clearly believed that it had no such discretion."].) Here, the record is silent, and the presumption governs.

People v. Dominguez CA5

California Court of Appeal · Aug 12, 2014

As an LCSW, she is qualified to make mental health diagnoses. … Persons with that disorder “have psychotic symptoms like hallucinations, delusions, … not thinking clearly, [and] disorganized thinking.”

Thorstrom v. Thorstrom

196 Cal. App. 4th 1406 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 29, 2011

The Minutes also fails to qualify as any form of grant deed or reservation of rights to water for the benefit of defendants’ parcel. … Finally, defendants established that the easement is reasonably necessary for the use and benefit of their quasi-dominant tenement.

Davis v. Fresno Unified School Dist.

California Court of Appeal · Jun 19, 2015

The reference to an instrument that requires the lessee under a site lease “to construct on the demised premises … a building or buildings for the use of the school district” clearly encompasses the construction services … Specifically, does section 17406(a)(1) require the leases in a lease-leaseback arrangement to be genuine to qualify for the exception?

Regan Roofing Co. v. Superior Court

21 Cal. App. 4th 1685 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 21, 1994

A *1717 monetary consideration is established for the principal settlement payment which, as in this case, constitutes close to the maximum the general contractor or developer has the capacity (whether by reason of lack of … The policy underlying the good faith settlement release provisions of section 877 et seq. is that settlements should be encouraged, and can be sufficiently encouraged only by immunizing the settling defendant from further

Knudsen v. Dept. of Motor Vehicles

California Court of Appeal · Apr 4, 2024

Considering that a prima facie case, which establishes the necessary facts to revoke a license may often be established through the submission of documents (Gerwig v. Gordon (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 59, 65–66; Delgado v. … The hearing officer accepted that Moore was a qualified expert. Moore reviewed the arrest report/the officer’s statement and the PAS device’s calibration records.

Cal. Dept. of State Hospitals v. F.G. CA1/4

California Court of Appeal · Mar 17, 2026

F.G. asked how that could be when he could hear the voices so 3 clearly, even though he could not see the people. … Laguitan established that F.G. has schizophrenia, yet he does not believe that he has mental illness or that he needs medication.

People v. Tellez CA4/3

California Court of Appeal · May 2, 2022

Second, Tellez argues the trial court’s order for testing under section 1202.1 must be stricken because he was not convicted of a qualifying offense. … But Tellez was not convicted of any of the qualifying offenses listed in the statute, and none of the other circumstances apply.

People v. Clem

92 Cal. Rptr. 2d 727 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 17, 2000

Since the risks of great bodily harm and mental illness were not inherently life threatening, the offense did not qualify as a predicate for felony murder. ( Ibid.) Burroughs was followed in People v. … The offense thus falls squarely within the established boundaries of the rule. IV. The judgment is affirmed. POCHÉ, J., and SEPULVEDA, J., concur.

In Re Carr

77 Cal. Rptr. 2d 500 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 14, 1998

Section 2900.5 was adopted in 1971 and is a well-established part of California felony sentencing law. (Stats. 1971, ch. 1732, § 2, p. 3686.) … Therefore, [defendant] clearly falls within the plain language of subdivision (c).” (Fn. omitted.)

Vascos Excavation Group LLC v. Gold

California Court of Appeal · Jan 20, 2023

A limited liability company (LLC) like Vascos may qualify for a license through the qualification of certain individuals affiliated with the company, including an RME. (§ 7068, subd. (b)(4).) … The trial court correctly noted that “Vascos could have easily submitted a declaration from Welch establishing that he was a bona fide RME.”

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

People v. Moore CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · Jun 30, 2016

Similarly, we are not impressed with the argument that the prosecutor committed misconduct by refusing to grant immunity to Gascoine. Moore asserts defense counsel asked the prosecutor to grant immunity. … When he sought additional benefits, the VA determined he did not qualify for compensation benefits and discontinued payments.

DVD Copy Control Assn v. Bunner

113 Cal. Rptr. 2d 338 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 20, 2002

It also asserted that "under California law, if a trade secret violation is established, irreparable harm is presumed" and "need not be shown." … "[C]omputer software can qualify for trade secret protection under the UTSA. [Citation.]

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.

People v. Mills

6 Cal. App. 4th 1278 · California Court of Appeal · May 27, 1992

Relying on the second and third elements of the Calder definition, 1 defendant states his position clearly: “When appellant was convicted of a felony in 1981 one of the legal consequences of that conviction was the penalty … Mink, supra, 173 Cal.App.3d 766, 770 , “ ‘The law is well established that... the increased penalty for a prior is attributable solely to the new, rather than the former, crime and its purpose is to discourage recidivist

Coleman v. County of Santa Clara

75 Cal. Rptr. 2d 516 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 19, 1998

It claimed the undisputed facts concerning the nature and substance of Measures A and B established as a matter of law that the Measure B tax was a valid “general” tax. … Nevertheless, it concluded that the undisputed, unambiguous content of the measures established as a matter of law that Measure B tax was a “general” tax.

Schwenn v. County of Riverside CA4/2

California Court of Appeal · Apr 13, 2023

RCDAS officers were not entitled to immunity as County employees. Defendants filed a demurrer to the FAC. … At an initial hearing, Defendants’ counsel argued that each of the officers had qualified immunity.5 The trial court noted that the officers who testified all agreed they went to the Property at the direction of Gutierrez

People v. Graves

137 Cal. App. 1 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 20, 1934

Graves and the other members of the said Board of Supervisors being then and there the duly elected, qualified and acting Board of Supervisors of said County of Los Angeles.” … It seems clear to us that the testimony other than the appellant’s grand jury statement clearly establishes the corpus delicti.

People v. Lee CA2/8

California Court of Appeal · Oct 20, 2021

Thus, he was qualified to opine on the above issues. (See Hart v. … Wielt (1970) 4 Cal.App.3d 224, 229 [“It is generally established that traffic officers whose duties include investigation of automobile accidents are qualified experts that may properly testify concerning their opinions as