Case law

People v. Lee CA5

California Court of Appeal · Jun 16, 2023

Dupree Jackson, a CBC member, testified for the prosecution under a grant of immunity. He was defendant Johnson’s cousin and sold drugs for the gang. … This court “held that conspiracy to actively participate in a criminal street gang did not qualify as a crime.

People v. Gonzales

179 Cal. App. 3d 566 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 31, 1986

While Hitch was grounded on federal due process, as we explain below, it clearly embraced a broad *573 definition of “discoverable evidence,” i.e., that which has some relation to the determination of guilt or innocence. … Nonetheless, we must reluctantly hold that the victim’s written description of the tyro robber’s tattoo simply fails to qualify under the Trombetta subjective materiality test.

Yost v. Forestiere

California Court of Appeal · Jun 29, 2020

We simply note that our reversal of the order denying Grandfather’s modification request does not necessarily preclude Mother from qualifying as the prevailing party and case law establishes the “determination of the prevailing … In enacting and amending section 527.6, the Legislature clearly was capable of referring to other provisions in the Code of Civil Procedure when it intended them to apply to civil harassment restraining orders.

People v. McKee

73 Cal. Rptr. 3d 661 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 20, 2008

The report shall be in the form of a declaration and shall be prepared by a professionally qualified person. … Furthermore, were we to defer decision on those constitutional issues, there would be lingering uncertainty in the law regarding the constitutionality of the Act, as it was amended by Proposition 83, an initiative clearly

Olson v. Hornbrook Community Services District

California Court of Appeal · Aug 27, 2021

Olson further believes “there is clearly sufficient evidence presented in the record to establish the facts that Dingman did not have proper licenses at the time he was working for the [district], that both he and the [district … The board clearly and repeatedly stated more information and detail are needed to make such a determination.

Byrum v. Brand

219 Cal. App. 3d 926 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 20, 1990

II Instructional Error and Remaining Claim We set forth established rules for evaluating claims of instructional error. … However, for a cause of action for negligent misrepresentation, clearly a representation is an essential element.

CBRE v. Super. Ct.

California Court of Appeal · Jun 4, 2024

The undisputed facts also establish that no exception to the Privette doctrine applies. … Assuming Petitioners met that burden by asserting that the Privette doctrine immunized them against all stated causes of action, the burden then shifted to Johnson to present evidence demonstrating a triable issue of material

Rosenberg v. Bump

43 Cal. App. 376 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 30, 1919

His will was duly admitted to probate and plaintiffs were appointed as executors thereof and qualified as such. … The court held that the position of petitioner was clearly untenable, saying: “The state was under no obligation to continue the law in force because of the application of anyone to purchase.

People v. Gollardo

California Court of Appeal · Nov 17, 2017

It is well established “ ‘[t]he burden is on the party attacking the sentence to clearly show that the sentencing decision was irrational or arbitrary. [Citation.] … This section defines shoplifting as “entering a commercial establishment with intent to commit larceny while that establishment is open during regular business hours, where the value of the property that is taken or intended

E-Fab, Inc. v. Accountants, Inc. Services

64 Cal. Rptr. 3d 9 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 16, 2007

Plaintiff contacted defendant "to obtain a temporary accountant who was qualified to work for plaintiff in such a position." … To establish the proper framework for deciding that question, we first describe the standard of review that governs this appeal, which follows a demurrer.

Adams v. Jack A.

209 Cal. App. 4th 1543 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 16, 2012

Jimenez can be neutral as he has clearly demonstrated a preference and alliance with [mother] in this process.” B. … The court stated, “I would not be inclined to order a fee paid for conduct that seems clearly to be outside the scope of a [section] 730 evaluation.”

People v. Investco Management & Development LLC

California Court of Appeal · Apr 18, 2018

Korusfood.com (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 1010, 1015–1016 [order granting motion for attorney fees qualifies as appealable collateral order].) … Corporations Code Section 25530, Subdivision (a) Does Not Immunize the DBO from an Award of Attorney Fees The DBO argues it is immune from an award of attorney fees under Corporations Code section 25530,

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.

Sirott v. Super. Ct.

California Court of Appeal · May 5, 2022

EBO does not qualify as a “member who does not meet these requirements” who may nevertheless maintain derivative claims in the court’s discretion. (§ 17709.02(a)(1).) … While not directly addressing the issue, the Supreme Court clearly suggested that a court has discretion to forgive the contemporaneous ownership requirement, not the continuous ownership requirement.

Thompson v. Superior Court

91 Cal. App. 4th 144 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 31, 2001

Even assuming arguendo that the necessity for further research on prior conviction allegations qualified as good cause, such delays would nonetheless clog the courts. … Thompson argues that this different language demonstrates that when the Legislature intends not to require proof of an enhancement at a preliminary hearing, it knows how to clearly so state.

Allstate Ins. Co. v. King

252 Cal. App. 2d 698 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 24, 1967

The record clearly establishes that Frazier was fully warned of his obligation under the policy to keep Allstate advised of his whereabouts during the pendency of the lawsuit and that he breached this obligation. … The adverse effect of the absence of an eyewitness defendant at the trial of a two-vehicle collision personal injury action was testified to by three well-qualified trial lawyers specializing in that type of litigation, one

Grand Prospect Partners v. Ross Dress for Less, Inc.

232 Cal. App. 4th 1332 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 12, 2015

However, the “Commencement Date Reduced Occupancy Period” clearly was curable, even though the Lease’s requirement that Mervyn’s and Target be operating on the commencement date could not be satisfied by a substitute tenant … In general, California law allows oppression to be established in two ways. First, and most frequently, oppression may be established by showing the contract is one of adhesion.

Rosener v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.

110 Cal. App. 3d 740 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 30, 1980

Further, some of appellant's actions were based upon the advice — however desultory — of counsel, and while such advice does not immunize appellant from liability, it is one factor in the overall assessment of the nature … Clearly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding such expert testimony, which was only marginally relevant, and at best repetitive and unduly time consuming.

Sinclair v. State of California

194 Cal. App. 2d 397 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 28, 1961

The Legislature has the constitutionally vested power to establish a system of state highways (Cal. Const., art. … The phrase “direct and practicable” as an entity describes the type of location to be selected, and the term “most” qualifies the total phrase.

Ward v. The Bank of New York Mellon CA2/5

California Court of Appeal · Jan 26, 2016

Don hoped that the Wards would qualify for a modified loan which would incorporate the amount of the arrears, but Wells Fargo clearly stated collection efforts would continue during the modification review process. … Don testified defendants never promised that the Wards would qualify for a loan modification and Wells Fargo clearly stated that collection efforts would proceed during the modification review process.