Case law

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.)

Kettler v. Gould

California Court of Appeal · Apr 20, 2018

Thus, in cases involving allegations of both protected and unprotected activity, the plaintiff is required to establish a probability of prevailing on any claim for relief based on allegations of protected activity. … But the court clearly explained why a hospital’s peer review procedure qualified as an “official proceeding authorized by law,” namely: “because that procedure is required under Business and Professions Code section 805 et

Citizens for a Sustainable Treasure Island v. City & County of San Francisco

227 Cal. App. 4th 1036 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 8, 2014

In interpreting CEQA, we accord the Guidelines great weight except where they are clearly unauthorized or erroneous. … Indeed, this core principle is well established in the Guidelines and case law.

Protect Telegraph Hill v. City & Co. of SF

California Court of Appeal · Oct 13, 2017

The Statutory Exemptions CEQA “establishes a comprehensive scheme to provide long-term protection to the environment. … ‘Substantial evidence is not argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, [or] evidence that is clearly inaccurate or erroneous.’ ” (Hines v.

Starr v. Ashbrook

California Court of Appeal · Jan 26, 2023

Stern recommended the trial court grant an order to establish visitation rights for Jonathan, David, and Noah on certain terms and conditions. … Those allegations include: (1) “[Ashbrook] is pursuing this meritless Petition for Instruction to confirm that a handwritten note is an amendment to the Trust, even though Arnold clearly 7 The

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. 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.)

People v. Williams

118 Cal. App. 4th 735 · California Court of Appeal · May 13, 2004

Even if an investor is sophisticated enough to qualify under the private placement exemption, there still must be an adequate amount of meaningful and understandable disclosure. … A principal who directly authorizes certain conduct clearly has the knowledge of such conduct and the control to permit or prohibit the continuation of the agent’s actions.

Swamp Capital v. Shaw CA2/5

California Court of Appeal · Jan 21, 2022

of cannabis in the city of Los Angeles (the Immunity Certificate). … ‘We must accept as true all evidence . . . tending to establish the correctness of the . . . findings . . . , resolving every conflict in favor of the judgment.’” (Sabbah v.

People v. Ramos

California Court of Appeal · Oct 2, 2025

Based on this evidence petitioner clearly took a direct step toward killing the victim and acted with specific intent to kill . . . . … That is, there may be some evidence that was admitted at a prior hearing or trial 4 Under section 872 (b), qualified peace officers at preliminary hearings may ordinarily testify as to statements

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

Zavala v. Robinson & Wisbaum CA4/3

California Court of Appeal · Jun 17, 2026

Thus, ‘communications with “some relation” to judicial proceedings’ are ‘absolutely immune from tort liability’ by the litigation privilege. [Citation.] … Purported Recusal Motion Zavala contends “the trial judge clearly demonstrated his bias and prejudice toward” him.

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.

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.

Protect Telegraph Hill v. City and County of San Francisco

California Court of Appeal · Oct 17, 2017

The Statutory Exemptions CEQA “establishes a comprehensive scheme to provide long-term protection to the environment. … ‘Substantial evidence is not argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, [or] evidence that is clearly inaccurate or erroneous.’ ” (Hines v.

Taylor v. Continental Southern Corp.

131 Cal. App. 2d 267 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 3, 1955

To have and to hold, the same unto the party of the second part, and to its successors in interest forever. ’ ’ The deed clearly is a conveyance upon condition subsequent, a reentry clause being unnecessary. (Papst v. … Cases dealing generally with the effect of conditions subsequent establish that such is the law. Parry v.

People v. Torres

California Court of Appeal · Mar 26, 2020

The jury’s findings are clearly contained in the record of conviction, and, as the Verdugo court stated, should be considered when determining whether a defendant is ineligible for relief as a matter of law. … Section 190.2, subdivision (a)(17)(A) lists robbery in violation of section 211 as a qualifying felony.

San Diegans etc. v. Har Construction

California Court of Appeal · Sep 17, 2015

Anti-SLAPP Statute A special motion to strike under section 425.16 is a procedural device that allows a defendant to obtain early dismissal of a lawsuit that qualifies as a SLAPP. (§ 425.16, subd. (b)(1).) … The fact that a party participates in a hearing to set a briefing or hearing schedule does not show a party forfeits arguments clearly set forth in a written brief on the matter.

Scott v. JPMorgan Chase Bank

214 Cal. App. 4th 743 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 16, 2013

ability to pay; (2) violation of Financial Code section 4973 (“predatory lending”) by acts perpetrated by Magnus, including approving construction loans to uninformed buyers, encouraging the use of false documentation to qualify … Scott fails to establish that the court erred in sustaining JPMorgan’s demurrer to the second amended complaint in its entirety. D.

In re A.P. CA4/2

California Court of Appeal · Apr 8, 2025

Khan did not qualify as an expert on the proposed subject of her testimony and ruled that Dr. … “A person is qualified to testify as an expert if he has special knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education sufficient to qualify him as an expert on the subject to which his testimony relates.