Case law

Cifuentes v. Costco Wholesale Corp.

238 Cal. App. 4th 65 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 26, 2015

The court rejected the argument the award did not qualify as wages because no services had been performed. … In light of our determination that Lisec should no longer be followed, at this juncture Costco clearly is the prevailing party.

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.

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. Sunny CA4/2

California Court of Appeal · Aug 26, 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.

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. Cruz

207 Cal. App. 4th 664 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 3, 2012

We recognize, as previously stated, that parole has been viewed as punishment or “ ‘an established variation on imprisonment’ ” (Samson v. … Clearly, community-based corrections programs are the core component of the Act.

People v. Lopez CA4/2

California Court of Appeal · May 14, 2025

In the present case, the record clearly shows punishment for the prior prison term enhancement was stricken, not stayed. … It would not appear in the defendant’s abstract of judgment and would not qualify the defendant for recall-and-resentencing.

Cwynar v. City and County of San Francisco

109 Cal. Rptr. 2d 233 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 10, 2001

First, Proposition G clearly is not a typical rent control law. It does not regulate rents or any other economic aspect of the landlord-tenant relationship. … Furthermore, the burden imposed on all property owners subject to the Proposition G restrictions is clearly significant.

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.”

Friends of the Trails v. Blasius

93 Cal. Rptr. 2d 193 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 28, 2000

The evidence clearly established that the use was more than just neighbors crossing neighboring land, and that the use was made by various people, young and old, families and single persons, friends, guests, visitors and … The general rule is clearly established that, despite the granting of an easement, the owner of the servient tenement may make any use of the land that does not interfere unreasonably with the easement. ...

Vessey & Co., Inc. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd.

210 Cal. App. 3d 629 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 21, 1989

This is clearly the significance of the requirement in both statutes that courts consider the whole record. . . . … This practice clearly discriminated against the returning strikers.

Starbucks Corp. v. Superior Court

168 Cal. App. 4th 1436 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 10, 2008

This clearly is contrary to both the letter and intent of sections 432.7 and 432.8. … Plaintiffs contend that a per se rule is necessary to protect the class of persons (persons convicted of minor marijuana crimes) whom the statute clearly is designed to protect.

People v. Cummings CA5

California Court of Appeal · Aug 29, 2022

It clearly was. … court stated, “We are not persuaded that all records of prior criminal convictions are immune from confrontation clause challenge.

Robben v. County of Tuolumne CA5

California Court of Appeal · May 23, 2024

Qualifying litigations for purposes of the vexatious litigant law include appeals dismissed as untimely (Fink v. … Finally, Robben contends as a purported “whistleblower,” he is “immune” from having to furnish security under section 391.3.

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.

People v. Rodriguez

California Court of Appeal · Dec 7, 2020

At the threshold, because section 1170.95, subdivision (d)(3), does not clearly identify the standard to be applied, we look to the Legislature’s stated purpose in enacting Senate Bill 1437 to guide our interpretation of … again in the Assembly Committee on Public Safety’s report on an amended version of the bill, the Association complained, “[B]y placing the burden on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that petitioners do not qualify

Laura F. v. Bernadette F.

99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 859 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 31, 2000

. § 1901 et seq.), which establishes minimum federal standards, both procedural and substantive, governing the removal of Indian children from their families. … At the close of the hearing, the judge found clear and convincing evidence established that it is likely both Laura and William would be adopted.

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.]

Healthcare Reimbursement Advisors v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center CA2/3

California Court of Appeal · Feb 22, 2016

Medicare is a federal health insurance program that reimburses hospitals for qualified medical services delivered to senior citizens and certain disabled persons. … the hospital for a special status classification in cases where the hospital would otherwise not meet the “normal criteria to qualify for the status.”

In Re CC

172 Cal. App. 4th 1481 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 13, 2009

Clearly, under this statute a court has broad discretion to evaluate not only the child's physical safety but also his or her emotional well-being. … Without a showing that a parent's personal rights are affected by a ruling, the parent does not establish standing. [Citation.]