Case law

People v. Dominguez

California Court of Appeal · Jul 2, 2021

Coronado, who was granted immunity in exchange for truthful testimony, denied that the group was boisterous or violent. … He fired because he was afraid, nervous and not thinking clearly.

Wesson v. Staples the Office Superstore, LLC

California Court of Appeal · Sep 9, 2021

In such cases the work is clearly not exempt in nature. … Thus, Arias stands for the proposition that PAGA claims need not qualify as class actions.

McPherson v. Public Employment Relations Board

189 Cal. App. 3d 293 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 11, 1987

Director of Employee Relations is now the negotiator for the District, and the personnel secretary’s assigned responsibilities include ‘access to and knowledge of the District’s employer/employee relations,’ the position qualifies … Clearly, this was an implied threat to remove her from her position if she was on the committee and directly interfered with her right to engage in labor relations activity.

In Re Marriage of Haines

33 Cal. App. 4th 277 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 21, 1995

The conveyance was necessary to qualify for a refinance loan, the proceeds of which were used to pay off the settlement of the lawsuit by Elsa’s mother. … Clearly, under the facts of this case, the common law presumption of title and the community property presumption of undue influence are in conflict. Our task is to resolve that conflict.

People v. Guzman CA6

California Court of Appeal · Apr 28, 2016

You got to look.[’]” As the jury was instructed, case law has established that some conditional threats still qualify as “so” unconditional as to convey the serious intention of the utterer and a … Several cases have considered whether what might be called a depth-charge threat, a threat that activates only in specified circumstances, can qualify as a criminal threat.

Garcetti v. Superior Court

102 Cal. Rptr. 2d 214 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 21, 2001

In that report he noted that the 1994 and 1988 offenses qualified as prior sexually violent offenses because of the age of the victims. … He noted that Marentez "may brush over some requirements but, when he understands a situation clearly, he respects the rights of others and is humanistically inclined."

Bertoli v. City of Sebastopol

California Court of Appeal · Jan 30, 2015

(d).) 12  Under similar circumstances, the Third District in Crews concluded that it had jurisdiction under the first notice of appeal (establishing the entitlement to … Deukmejian (1982) 32 Cal.3d 440, 447 (ACLU).) 14 enshrined in the California Constitution by Proposition 59 is expressly qualified by the assurance that such right of access

People v. Hewitt CA2/6

California Court of Appeal · Oct 20, 2014

Thus, there is no constitutional requirement that the facts be established beyond a reasonable doubt. [¶] . . . … Appellant's criminal record and prison discipline record clearly support the finding that appellant poses a substantial risk to public safety if released.

California Teachers' Ass'n v. Governing Board of Central Union High School District

141 Cal. App. 3d 606 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 31, 1983

I do not view the statute in question, Education Code section 44865, as clearly or as unambiguously written as my fellow justices. Thus, it *616 becomes necessary to construe the statute. … "Existing law generally requires a fifth year of college level work beyond the bachelor's degree to qualify for a teaching credential.

Mossman v. City of Oakdale

170 Cal. App. 4th 83 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 14, 2009

In a written opinion, the arbitrator found in favor of Mossman, noting that paragraph 403 “clearly contemplates some capacity on the part of laid off employees to bump into positions for which they are qualified.” … New England, etc., supra, 628 F.2d at pp. 647, 649 [federal labor law firmly establishes that court may resubmit existing arbitration award to original arbitrator for interpretation or amplification where arbitrator ordered

Toigo v. Town of Ross

82 Cal. Rptr. 2d 649 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 30, 1998

In order to establish entitlement to summary adjudication, the moving party must establish that the cause of action is without merit by negating an essential element or by establishing a complete defense. (§ 437c, subd. … In arguing that a final decision has been made for ripeness purposes, the claimant has the heavy burden of setting forth facts that are “clear, complete, and unambiguous” showing that the agency has “drawn the line, clearly

Otay Land Co. v. U.E. Limited

California Court of Appeal · Sep 26, 2017

Plaintiffs established HSAA liability The trial court concluded Plaintiffs did not establish any HSAA liability. … (Nurad, supra, 966 F.2d at p. 847 ["[T]here clearly was a disposal . . . when the Company closed down the finishing plant and abandoned the tanks."].)

JP-Richardson v. Pacific Oaks etc.

California Court of Appeal · Jun 29, 2021

The assets of the Joint Venture have clearly been placed in 9 jeopardy and put under a cloud of suspicion. … “Knowledge of the operative legal principle and its proper application can be inferred only ‘if the court finds “an error that is so obvious that it would be instantly perceived as such by the average person qualified to

People v. Mooring

California Court of Appeal · Sep 27, 2017

This evidence is sufficient to establish Davis had constructive possession. (People v. … The “record clearly shows the court was aware of its discretion, aware of the applicable factors a court must consider in dismissing a prior strike, and appropriately applied the factors.” (People v.

Wawrzenski v. United Airlines

California Court of Appeal · Nov 12, 2024

In any event, the trial court ruled Wawrzenski failed to establish a prima facie case of gender discrimination and to establish pretext. … “Standing alone, an employee’s unarticulated belief that an employer is engaging in discrimination will not suffice to establish protected conduct for the purposes of establishing a prima facie case of retaliation, where

Lin v. Board of Directors of PrimeCare Medical Network

California Court of Appeal · Feb 19, 2025

According to PrimeCare, “It was error for the JHC to require a showing of multiple instances of improper patient care to establish ‘imminent danger.’ … In the Board’s view, ‘not consistent’ is not accompanied by a qualifier such as substantial and denotes a required finding of incompatibility without more.’

People v. Barrett

181 Cal. App. 4th 196 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 22, 2009

But it is established that such a constitutional right exists for the civil commitment of a "mentally retarded person" under this section. … There was no mention of a jury or of Barrett's right to one before San Andreas Regional Center psychologist Robert Thomas, who both sides stipulated was qualified to testify as an expert in a section 6500 setting, was called

Miller v. Superior Court

127 Cal. App. 3d 494 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 6, 1981

established that absence of the danger of access did not remove the officer's authority to search. … Rptr. 315 , 531 P.2d 1099 ] did not address the question of searches incident to a lawful custodial arrest, and thus Brisendine does not qualify the authority of the police to search such an arrestee.

Welco Electronics, Inc. v. Mora

223 Cal. App. 4th 202 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 23, 2014

During a bench trial, defendant made a motion for nonsuit on the grounds that plaintiff failed to submit sufficient evidence to establish a cause of action for conversion. The trial court denied the motion. … [does not] qualify as ‘property’ that can be converted. [f] . . .

People v. Perez

California Court of Appeal · Aug 17, 2021

The clause “[e]xcept as provided in paragraph (2)” clearly identifies an exception to the mandatory rule stated in subdivision (b)(1) of section 1473.7. … To establish the type of “error” required by section 1473.7, a defendant need not establish ineffective assistance of counsel.