Case law

Guardianship of Simpson

79 Cal. Rptr. 2d 389 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 7, 1998

And domestic violence clearly was a major issue in the case before us, even if one were to discount wholly the murder evidence. … Hence the existence of the “preliminary fact”—the relevance to domestic violence—was clearly *938 established in this case.

People v. Perez

California Court of Appeal · Mar 19, 2026

The Williams court concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish the constitutional reasonableness of the impoundment because it “did not establish that impounding [defendant]’s car served any community caretaking … That Perez had a suspended or revoked license without more does not qualify impoundment of his vehicle as a community caretaking function. In Blakes v.

Akers v. Kelley Co.

173 Cal. App. 3d 633 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 22, 1985

Either way, the evidence does not disclose that Akers was “clearly negligent.” … This evidence was sufficient to establish the objective conditions of the product.

People v. Young CA2/5

California Court of Appeal · Apr 7, 2016

Ferrara was clearly qualified to opine on whether a particular vehicle was an Infiniti. In the record before us on appeal, such identifications comprised the bulk of Ferrara’s testimony. … Defendant thus bears the burden of establishing constitutionally inadequate assistance of counsel.” (Ibid.)

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

Taylor v. Lockheed Martin Corp.

92 Cal. Rptr. 2d 873 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 23, 2000

By enacting the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) *484 and approving the California Occupational Safety and Health Act as a state-OSHA plan, the federal government has “clearly and unambiguously” authorized … One such duty is the evaluation and approval of qualifying state plans. ( 29 U.S.C. § 667 (c); Florida Citrus Packers v. State of Cal.

Calexico Unified School Dist. v. City of Calexico CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · Dec 27, 2023

Government Code section 815.6 is one of the statutory exceptions to this rule of governmental immunity. … In other words, “notice must promote and satisfy the objectives of the law” to qualify as substantial compliance. (Palo Alto, supra, 180 Cal.App.3d at p. 396.)

Mendoza v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal · Sep 15, 2025

Counsel then expressed concern that he was not “qualified” under local bar association protocols to represent defendants charged with serious felonies. … (Ibid.; see Lacayo, supra, 56 Cal.App.5th at p. 400 [“the 60-day rule is absolute and there is no good-cause exception to the rule”].) 9  Section 859b clearly contemplates

Building Industry Assn. v. City of Livermore

45 Cal. App. 4th 719 · California Court of Appeal · May 20, 1996

Instead, the Building Association contends the preemption exception established by sections 17958, 17958.5, and 17958.7 simply does not apply to residential fire sprinkler requirements. … Its failure to speak clearly constrains us to apply former law.

In re Marriage of J.Q. & T.B.

223 Cal. App. 4th 687 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 31, 2014

But clearly whether he did or did not immediately stop this was clearly situational from the court’s perspective. [¶] The parties were at an impasse. They had been having problems. … The court opined there was “clearly a language problem” and the parties were providing only part of the story.

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.

Ostayan v. Serrano Reconveyance Company

92 Cal. Rptr. 2d 577 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 7, 2000

In this case, there clearly is no dispute as to the dispositive facts. … His concession in this regard precludes him from establishing the critical element of reliance.

S. Kornreich & Sons, Inc. v. Genesis Insurance

56 Cal. App. 4th 407 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 15, 1997

combination with clause 5.a.(3)(c) and in context with the remainder of the policy, automatically gives the insured permanent insurance covering newly acquired property for the remaining term of the policy period (assuming it qualified … Permanent coverage is clearly established, without question, interpretation, or inference.

People v. Butte CA1/5

California Court of Appeal · Jan 19, 2021

I believe the evidence demonstrates that incredibly clearly.” … , and that the defense could not establish the foundational requirements under Kelly.

People v. Harper

California Court of Appeal · Jan 9, 2020

Money has always qualified as property for purposes of extortion. . . . … The Court of Appeal held the evidence and reasonable inferences “amply established a forcible taking.” (Dagampat, supra, 167 Cal.App.2d at p. 495.)

Winston v. County of Los Angeles

California Court of Appeal · Dec 13, 2024

Case precedent establishes that a new statute authorizing an award of attorney fees applies to actions pending on the statute’s effective date. … Numerous general statutory provisions are considered to codify or relate to the general rule that statutes are interpreted to apply prospectively unless legislative intent clearly indicates the contrary.

City of Atascadero v. Merill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.

80 Cal. Rptr. 2d 329 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 6, 1999

Nevertheless, the Irvine Ranch case is clearly analogous to this one, and instructive to our analysis. … (E.D.Pa. 1983) 581 F.Supp. 88, 94-97 [fraud in sale of securities qualifies as “racketeering activity” under RICO].)

People Ex Rel. Department of Public Works v. Wasserman

240 Cal. App. 2d 716 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 14, 1966

Breidert discusses Symons in detail but does not state that the latter case is overruled or qualified in any way. … Co., supra, 61 Cal.2d 659 , 665-667 passim) qualifies the rule announced in Bacich . (Cf. Bacich v.

State Board of Education v. Honig

13 Cal. App. 4th 720 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 18, 1993

An 1884 constitutional amendment granted the Board authority to establish a uniform system of textbooks. … The Legislature *762 established a unified Department of Education in 1921. (Stats. 1921, ch. 605, § 1, pp. 1033-1035.)

Espinoza v. Shiomoto

California Court of Appeal · Jan 12, 2017

, and therefore there can be no qualified refusal or conditional refusal to take the test.’ … Instead, McNeely conferred a passive or negative right on motorists to be free from warrantless, coerced blood tests unless the police can establish the existence of exigent circumstances.