Case law

Williams v. City of Los Angeles

229 Cal. App. 3d 1627 · California Court of Appeal · May 10, 1991

Respondent, having retired at the rank of lieutenant, does not qualify. This section precludes a retired lieutenant from returning to active duty. … Ferrell’s declaration showed that such statement came after Ferrell specifically warned respondent that in his opinion the charter clearly prohibited reinstatement if respondent retired.

Stebbins v. White

190 Cal. App. 3d 769 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 25, 1987

And the aggressive, even violent, characters of James Shoals and McCoswell Ward stand out clearly even on a cold appellate record. The trial court took note of this in its statement of decision. … The failure on the part of the person elected to qualify would result in a vacancy, which could and should be filled by the governor’s appointment.

In Re Porterfield

63 Cal. App. 2d 518 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 28, 1944

Several of those cases clearly distinguish between statutes or ordinances adopted under the police power to regulate businesses or to secure revenue and those which are clearly intended actually to prohibit lawful businesses … Clearly that ordinance was discriminatory and void. It did not attempt to regulate businesses or authorize the licensing thereof.

Charmac, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

233 Cal. App. 3d 660 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 21, 1991

Now, section 11580.9, subdivision (c), clearly determines the respective responsibilities of the two insurers—the [premises policy] is primary, and the insurer of the [vehicle] is the excess carrier.” (Ibid.) … The term “insured” is limited to persons or organizations “qualifying as an insured in the ‘Persons Insured’ provision.”

People v. Wilson

California Court of Appeal · Oct 21, 2020

Moreover, even assuming some error, Wilson does not establish he was prejudiced. … The court’s reply clearly indicated to the jury that it must find J.A. acted with sexual intent.

People v. Garcia

California Court of Appeal · Jul 11, 2023

The court stated, “The overall record of conviction establishes that [Garcia] directly aided and abetted the murder with malice aforethought.” … Ramirez (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 923, 932, 254 Cal.Rptr.3d 670 (Ramirez)) for petitioners who are clearly eligible for resentencing.” (Flint, supra, 75 Cal.App.5th at p. 610.) B.

People v. Lamar CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · Jul 30, 2025

“ ‘California law permits a person with “special knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education” in a particular field to qualify as an expert witness (Evid. … We will not disturb the trial court’s exercise of that discretion in determining an expert witness’s qualification “absent a showing of manifest abuse” such as when “ ‘ “ ‘the evidence shows that a witness clearly lacks qualification

Environmental Law Foundation v. State Water Resources Control Bd.

California Court of Appeal · Aug 29, 2018

Nor does the fact that nonnavigable groundwater rather than nonnavigable tributaries is at issue here dissuade us where, in both cases, it is alleged the removal of water will have an adverse impact on navigable water clearly … “The applicability of the immunity statutes to entities that are under a common law duty to acquire and provide an AED would not in any way reduce or undermine the incentive that the immunity statutes provide to persons or

Bernard v. City of Oakland

202 Cal. App. 4th 1553 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 30, 2012

Overview of the PEMHCA The purpose of the PEMHCA is to “[e]nable the state to attract and retain qualified employees by providing health benefit plans similar to those commonly provided in private industry” and to “[p]romote … controlling ... the contemporaneous administrative construction of [an] enactment by those charged with its enforcement ... is entitled to great weight, and courts generally will not depart from such construction unless it is clearly

People v. Nettles CA3

California Court of Appeal · Jan 28, 2025

It also established a recall and resentencing procedure for defendants serving prison terms including such enhancements. (§ 1172.75.) … “[W]hen a court has not exercised its informed discretion, remand is the default ‘unless the record “clearly indicate[s]” that the trial court would have reached the same conclusion “even if it had been aware that it had

People v. Hampton

California Court of Appeal · Feb 10, 2022

This initial determination is not “an idle exercise as far as the People are concerned” as such a determination shifts the burden to the prosecution to establish defendant could still be convicted of murder; and, if the prosecution … Thus, the trial court’s order determining defendant is entitled to relief qualifies as “[a]n order made after judgment, affecting the substantial rights of the people,” and is appealable under section 1238, subdivision (a

People v. Rodriguez CA4/2

California Court of Appeal · Jul 23, 2014

Defendant’s sentencing memorandum also clearly pointed out that defendant was “ineligible for probation.” … The record affirmatively establishes that he could not meet the requirements for probation or that defendant was entitled to a grant of probation under the 2005 version of section 1203.066, subdivision (c).

Merrill v. Navegar, Inc.

89 Cal. Rptr. 2d 146 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 19, 2000

This is clearly not the sort of stuff from which exceptions to the general rule of Richards are made. IV. … I am, however, most emphatically suggesting that (1) the legislative branch is clearly equipped to deal with complex policy issues, while the judiciary is equally clearly not, and (2) when the pertinent legislative body puts

People v. Thurston

244 Cal. App. 4th 644 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 15, 2016

“(N) A local child support agency for the purpose of establishing paternity and establishing and enforcing child support orders. “(O) Juvenile justice commissions as established under Section 225. . . . … The public interest, as evidenced by the adoption of section 1170.126, subdivision (e)(3), and the provisions of sections 1170.12, subdivision (d), and 667, subdivision (b), clearly militates in favor of release.

People v. Jimenez CA2/7

California Court of Appeal · Apr 21, 2026

“For certain sex offenses, . . . the Penal Code establishes . . . alternative sentencing frameworks,” including section 667.6. (People v. Catarino (2023) 14 Cal.5th 748, 752.) … This sentencing provision applied to count 3 because Jimenez was convicted of a qualifying offense (lewd or lascivious acts under section 288) with a qualifying special circumstance (use of a knife).

Simoncini v. DeMartini

229 Cal. App. 3d 881 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 29, 1991

Application of these principles to the Will in this case leads us to the conclusion that the provisions at issue must be read as the court below has done: that is, as establishing a stipulated, fixed value of $400,000 for … The declaration was clearly of no evidentiary value. In the first place, it was obviously hearsay.

People v. Adams

9 Cal. Rptr. 3d 170 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 5, 2004

They would establish a continuing, though volatile[,j relationship between them.” … They also do not establish Kallerup’s presence at the scene of the murder.

BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF PETALUMA v. Walsh

169 Cal. App. 4th 1049 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 31, 2008

the Trustees determine in their discretion, provided that such other charities are organized and operated exclusively for charitable purposes within the meaning of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code and are qualified … The cases appellants cite do not establish otherwise.

Kaye v. Mount La Jolla Homeowners Assn.

204 Cal. App. 3d 1476 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 7, 1988

Turning to the balancing of the other factors identified in Brunzell, inconsistent judicial determinations quite clearly is not a problem where a severance of parties is not involved. … The *1487 Kayes frankly admit there is no exact California precedent on the theory of liability which they wish to establish.

California Grocers Ass'n v. Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control

219 Cal. App. 4th 1065 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 19, 2013

By contrast, section 23394.7 does not use qualifying words that specify the function performed by the checkout stand, such as “when” or “by whom” the checkout stand is operated or “unless” a lock-out system is employed. … For example, the law would have clearly prohibited retailers from selling alcohol at checkout stands where customers themselves scanned products for checkout „with limited or no assistance‟ from a store employee. . . .