Case law

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.

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.

Ohran v. National Automobile Insurance Co.

82 Cal. App. 2d 636 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 1, 1947

sufficient answer to this claim and to the authorities relied upon by defendant to point out that the policy here was issued to provide the compulsory, statutory insurance required by the above-mentioned act in order to qualify … But a law established for a public reason cannot be contravened by a private agreement.”

People v. Brian J.

58 Cal. Rptr. 3d 246 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 24, 2007

To qualify for an SVPA commitment, the person must have been convicted of sexually violent offenses against two victims. (§ 6600.) … In contrast, under the EDA, there are no particular qualifying offenses, and an EDA commitment may be imposed on any adult CYA ward.

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

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.”

San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City & County of San Francisco

125 Cal. Rptr. 2d 745 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 30, 2002

However, the cases on which appellants rely are clearly distinguishable from this one. … Clearly, Beach-Courchesne is entirely distinguishable and inapposite to the case before us.

People v. Sunny CA4/2

California Court of Appeal · Sep 10, 2021

As for use immunity, a prosecutor commits misconduct for not offering it only where (among other things) the defense properly seeks immunity for the witness and the witness’s testimony is “clearly exculpatory.” … Here, defense counsel never requested use immunity for Terra nor did he provide an offer of proof as to what she would say if granted immunity.

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.]

In Re Vitamin Cases

2 Cal. Rptr. 3d 358 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 20, 2003

Thayer, supra, 92 Cal.App.4th at p. 839), we reiterate that our concern is with the apparent substantial duplication of effort in this litigation when the cause was, from the beginning, ably championed by a phalanx of highly qualified … However, that question rather clearly concerned more the amount of damages that might be recovered than the entitlement to any damages.

People v. Amaya CA4/2

California Court of Appeal · Jan 9, 2015

Defendant argues the prosecution presented insufficient evidence to prove that one of his prior convictions qualified as a strike. … This clearly indicates defendant pled guilty to assault with a deadly weapon, which is a strike offense.

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.

Galvan v. Dameron Hospital Assn.

California Court of Appeal · Jul 17, 2019

would be subjected to the same type of harassment and intimidation she was subjected to in the months before she went out on stress leave if she returned to the medical-surgical department, and she did not feel that she was qualified … “The FEHA is a statute which clearly states a public policy against discrimination on the basis of age [and national origin] in employment.” (Jennings v. Marralle (1994) 8 Cal.4th 121, 130.)

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.

Mountjoy v. Bank of America, N.A.

245 Cal. App. 4th 266 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 29, 2016

We agree with the Mountjoys that the time entries their attorneys submitted do not qualify as block billing. … Donahue, supra, 182 Cal.App.4th at p. 272), such a comparison, by itself, cannot establish the reasonableness of a particular fee award.

Danzig v. Jack Grynberg & Associates

161 Cal. App. 3d 1128 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 21, 1984

Grynberg’s claim of unjustified reliance is based largely, if not exclusively, on the disclaimer language contained in the subscription agreement form signed by each of the limited partners. 6 *1138 It is well established … The rule of non-immunity has been stated by a leading commentator in the following language: “A party to a contract who has been guilty of fraud in its inducement cannot absolve himself from the effects of his fraud by any

People v. Lee CA6

California Court of Appeal · Jul 7, 2023

Hai Nguyen Coparticipant and former codefendant Hai Nguyen testified under subpoena and was given immunity in exchange for his testimony. … To overturn a conviction based on insufficient evidence, “it must clearly appear that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support it.” (People v.

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.