Case law

People v. Prevost

60 Cal. App. 4th 1382 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 21, 1998

Clearly, Congress intended state and local governance of cable systems to co-exist side by side with the federal regulations: “The purposes of [1984 Cable Act] are to [inter alia] establish guidelines for the exercise of … Consequently, whether ADP gave appellants an authorization, whether that authorization was valid and whether ADP qualifies as a franchised or duly licensed cable television system is irrelevant. 8 The prosecution demonstrated

In Re Ogea

17 Cal. Rptr. 3d 698 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 26, 2004

The choice of the word “means” suggests the voters intended to define the offenses qualifying for Proposition 36 treatment only as the offenses of unlawful personal use, possession for personal use, or transportation for … In light of this well-established distinction, we disagree with the district attorney’s contention the term “using a firearm” under subdivision (b)(3)(A) of Penal Code section 1210.1 must be construed as encompassing being

People v. Chavez

5 Cal. App. 5th 110 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 3, 2016

The statute allows a qualifying defendant, at any time after the termination of the period of probation, to withdraw his or her plea of guilty or nolo contendere and enter a plea of not guilty. (§ 1203.4, subd. (a)(1).) … A court may exercise such authority unless, in a given context, the Legislature has clearly evidenced a contrary intent. (Williams, supra, 30 Cal.3d at p. 482; Thomas, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 211.)

People v. Gattis CA6

California Court of Appeal · May 6, 2015

The state has established that invocation of the privilege against self-incrimination would lead to a revocation of probation, triggering the penalty situation discussed in Saechao and Murphy. … Treatment of sex offenders includes “specialized interventions delivered by qualified mental health professionals and designed to address the multiple psychological and physiological factors found to be associated with sexual

People v. Hallgren CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · Jun 22, 2016

that he was ineligible for resentencing if the People believed his felony conviction did not qualify as a misdemeanor. … that the act underlying his burglary conviction qualifies as "shoplifting" under section 459.5, subdivision (a).

In Re Jacob E.

18 Cal. Rptr. 3d 15 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 18, 2004

that included: (1) a "report of health examination for school entry," showing that Jacob had seen a doctor in April 2003; (2) an appointment card scheduling a dental appointment for Jacob on May 12, 2003; and (3) Jacob's immunization … Read together, the statutes clearly reflect a legislative intent that the juvenile court is limited to reviewing whether [the Department] abused its discretion in placing the minor . . . ." ( Department of Social Services

People v. Pointer

151 Cal. App. 3d 1128 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 17, 1984

At the same time it is recognized that the government may impose conditions of probation which qualify or impinge upon constitutional rights when circumstances inexorably so require. (See People v. … Less restrictive conditions aimed at protecting the child in útero and after birth would not so clearly induce resistance to the disclosure of pregnancy.

Edward Carey Construction Co. v. State Compensation Insurance Fund

194 Cal. App. 4th 657 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 25, 2011

“Plaintiff’s alleged damages clearly arise from Mr. Carey’s work-related injury, and as such worker’s compensation is Plaintiff’s exclusive remedy and the WCAB has exclusive jurisdiction to hear this dispute.” … SCIF first argued it was “immune from suit in tort” under the Tort Claims Act. (Security Officers, supra, 17 Cal.App.4th at pp. 890, 892.)

People v. Sapienza CA4/2

California Court of Appeal · Dec 6, 2022

On June 21, 2021, the People filed an opposition to defendant’s request, arguing defendant had failed to establish eligibility: “Dr. … “‘It is [defendant’s] burden on appeal to establish an abuse of discretion and prejudice.’” (People v. Pacheco, supra, 75 Cal.App.5th at p. 213.)

People v. Tolbert CA2/5

California Court of Appeal · Nov 30, 2020

The factors in aggravation were that the victim was clearly elderly and vulnerable, the crime involved some level of planning and sophistication, and defendant’s 6 priors were numerous … The expert testimony in this case established that neither gasoline nor gasoline vapor is an explosive.” (Clark, supra, 50 Cal.3d at pp. 599–600, fn. omitted.)

People v. Daya

29 Cal. App. 4th 697 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 27, 1994

The scope of appellate review of the sufficiency of the evidence has been clearly and consistently articulated. … The record clearly reflects the prosecution did not pursue a second degree murder conviction predicated on implied malice.

In re Ontiveros

California Court of Appeal · Jun 21, 2021

Under established principles of statutory construction, we are not bound to follow the literal interpretation of the text if it would lead to such an absurd and unreasonable result that could not have been intended. … The California Supreme Court clearly stated that parole eligibility under [Proposition] 57 applies, ‘only to prisoners convicted of non-violent felonies.’ [Citation.]

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.

Fiscal v. City and County of San Francisco

70 Cal. Rptr. 3d 324 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 9, 2008

By barring the imposition of any permit or licensing requirement, Penal Code section 12026 served to preclude local public entities from adopting impediments on legally qualified citizens wishing to “purchase, own, possess … That clearly is inapposite to the facts of this case.

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] . . .

Meister v. Regents of University of California

78 Cal. Rptr. 2d 913 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 23, 1998

“Section 998 clearly reflects this state’s policy of encouraging settlements. ... … Defendants established below that the pretax value of the leave offer was $44,495.54.

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

Brown v. Superior Court

199 Cal. App. 4th 971 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 3, 2011

(Professional Engineers, supra, 50 Cal.4th 989, 1037 [“the furloughs clearly did significantly reduce . . . wages or salary . . .”].) … Subdivision (b) of section 19826 is clearly meant to allow the ordinary collective bargaining process to operate.

People v. Riddle

189 Cal. App. 3d 222 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 10, 1987

Code, sec. 236); and every element of the offense seems to have been fully and clearly shown.” (Id. at p. 256.) … However, false imprisonment has been established under similar factual circumstances in other jurisdictions. In National Bond & Investment Co. v.

Davis v. Fresno Unified School Dist.

California Court of Appeal · Dec 16, 2020

Disgorgement qualifies as effective relief and, therefore, the taxpayer’s action part of this lawsuit is not moot. … time and in the court specified by Section 860 to determine the validity of such matter.”10 When the 60-day period passes without an interested person bringing an action under section 863, the agency’s decision becomes immune