Case law

United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Superior Court

204 Cal. App. 3d 1513 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 11, 1988

These provisions, without establishing an exclusive remedy, furnish a remedy for insurers believing Cumis counsel is not representing the insured in a reasonably competent fashion. … Issues other than the attorney’s fees matter include “[w]hether Kent and/or his associates and paralegals are sufficiently qualified by virtue of training and experience to represent the insured defendants in the tendered

People v. Pacheco CA3

California Court of Appeal · Jul 8, 2025

Finally, he admitted his actions caused the victim to suffer second degree burns, which establishes the hot coffee factually qualified as a weapon capable of producing and likely to produce great bodily injury. … The prosecution theory was that Pacheco robbed several business establishments with the use of a gun and that his identity as the robber was established through witness identification and video surveillance.

People v. Hardeman

244 Cal. App. 2d 1 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 4, 1966

It is admittedly established that defendant’s building was destroyed by an incendiary fire and that the corpus delicti of the crime of arson was established. … That being established, the declarations of any of the conspirators may be used to establish his own complicity as was permitted by the court.

People v. Seigler

California Court of Appeal · Dec 1, 2025

issue of Seigler’s mental health and the possibility of mental health diversion did not appear out of nowhere on the morning of trial, and it likewise provides support for defense counsel’s representation that Seigler was “clearly … After the court’s review of a request under California Rules of Court, rule 8.1120, and good cause established under rule 8.1105, it is hereby ordered that the opinion should be published in the Official Reports.

PINNACLE MUSEUM TOWER ASSN. v. Pinnacle Market Development (US), LLC

187 Cal. App. 4th 24 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 30, 2010

Clearly it can. … Assuming the CC&R's had been recorded before the sale of the first condominium, we cannot conclude that recording a document qualifies as making the document readily or easily obtainable.

Bauer v. Bauer

46 Cal. App. 4th 1106 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 21, 1996

In enacting the two separate provisions of subdivision (b)(4) and (b)(5), the Legislature clearly distinguished between a cause of action for involuntary dissolution based on the controlling shareholders’ misconduct, and … In construing these subdivisions, we are not authorized to insert qualifying provisions not included in the statutory language and may not rewrite a statute to conform to an assumed intention that does not appear on its face

People v. Phillips

California Court of Appeal · Feb 28, 2022

Sergeant Lyn O’Connor was qualified as an expert in crime scene investigations and bloodstain pattern analysis. … Although the prosecutor clearly erred, prosecutorial error does not require a trial court to declare a mistrial in all circumstances.

Smith v. Smith

140 Cal. App. 2d 944 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 20, 1956

His testimony in no way establishes that the testatrix was so incompetent in the legal sense as to be incapable of making a valid, testamentary disposition of her property. … Lee was not only a well qualified physician, he had treated Mrs.

Mt. Holyoke Homes v. California Costal Commission

167 Cal. App. 4th 830 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 21, 2008

An analogous principle is well established in the context of personal jurisdiction. … MHH clearly participated in the Commission’s proceedings in a significant manner for several years, ostensibly recognizing the Commission’s jurisdiction before asserting the Commission lost it.

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. Amezcua CA5

California Court of Appeal · Nov 7, 2014

It seems to me that the evidence is that there was a loaded firearm; clearly, that is undisputed…. … The prosecutor, in turn, offered use immunity. On February 27, 2012, the court signed an order granting use immunity.

In Re Lauren Z.

70 Cal. Rptr. 3d 583 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 11, 2008

The law of California clearly and indisputably prefers initial placement with a relative over placement with non-relatives. … The record establishes each of these factors.

People v. Rojo CA3

California Court of Appeal · Nov 4, 2024

Further, J.A. made up the story about defendant being the shooter in exchange for immunity even though there was no corroboration and evidence suggested J.A. had a motive to “earn his stripes.” … Under the felony-murder rule as it existed before 2019, malice was imputed if the defendant intended to commit the underlying qualifying felony. (People v. Chun (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1172, 1184.)”

Twain Harte Homeowners Ass'n v. County of Tuolumne

138 Cal. App. 3d 664 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 27, 1982

The testimony at the trial in this action clearly established that such letters are, in effect, a commitment of service. … for public water unless you were clearly outside of the boundaries of one of those existing districts.”

People v. Bradley

64 Cal. App. 4th 386 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 1, 1998

This language clearly prescribes that terms of enhancement, including the five-year enhancement under section 667(a), be imposed in addition to the indeterminate term. … [‘Section 1385 permits dismissals in the interest of justice in any situation where the Legislature has not clearly evidenced a contrary intent.’].)”

Ford Motor Warranty Cases

California Court of Appeal · Apr 4, 2023

However, the dealer qualifies that this disclaimer “does not affect 3 any warranties covering the vehicle that the vehicle manufacturer may provide.” … But it cites no more recent authority establishing that manufacturer warranty obligations are implied terms in a retailer’s sale contract.

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

Roddenberry v. Roddenberry

44 Cal. App. 4th 634 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 16, 1996

She should have clearly pleaded that claim. (FPI Development Inc. v. … The lack of established meaning of the term “continuation.” There was no evidence that the “continuation” concept had any established meaning at the time of the negotiations in 1969.

Wilson v. Merritt

48 Cal. Rptr. 3d 630 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 11, 2006

Merritt’s counsel argued that no cause of action based on informed consent had been established. … The court stated that “[t]he statutes and federal regulations on which the [patient relied] to establish the duty of disclosure clearly [held] ‘the investigator’ [citation] or the ‘person who [was] primarily responsible for

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.]