Case law

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.

Buckley v. California Coastal Commission

80 Cal. Rptr. 2d 562 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 1, 1998

cited by the Commission for the proposition that failure to obtain judicial review of a determination by an administrative agency by a timely petition for writ of administrative mandate renders the administrative action immune … Temporary takings which deny a landowner all use of property are not different in kind from permanent takings, for which compensation is clearly *194 required. (First Lutheran Church v.

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.)”

Morell v. Board of Ret. of the Orange County Employees' Ret. etc.

California Court of Appeal · Jul 26, 2024

Alameda County Employees’ Retirement Association (2002)] . . . 9 Cal.5th . . . [1032,] 1067, finding that it is the Legislature that has final authority to establish the provisions governing the award of pension benefits … Distributions from the account must be used to reimburse the employee for qualified expenses related to medical and dental services.”

CAT PARTNERSHIP v. County of Santa Cruz

74 Cal. Rptr. 2d 652 · California Court of Appeal · May 11, 1998

Quite clearly, the issue of the property tax owed by the cable system owners was extensively and completely examined by the AAB. … The "cases establish that the key question concerning remand is whether there remain factual determinations to be made in establishing market value." ( Prudential Ins. Co. v.

People v. Taylor CA3

California Court of Appeal · Jun 26, 2026

The court further explained that evidence defendant committed the robberies “in concert with other individuals” and was on probation “clearly shows there was a plan in place … to target ATM machines …. … The Legislature enacted sections 1001.35 and 1001.36 to authorize trial courts to grant pretrial mental health diversion to defendants “diagnosed with qualifying mental disorders.” (Gomez v.

People v. Kent CA5

California Court of Appeal · Jan 12, 2026

At trial, the girlfriend testified with a grant of immunity that she and her young child had not seen Buford for several years, and she had no contact with her family. … (See Walker, supra, 16 Cal.5th at p. 1029 [concluding “the plain language of section 1385, subdivision (c)(2) establishes a standard consistent with Ortiz”].)

People v. Quinonez CA2/6

California Court of Appeal · Apr 11, 2025

A witness is qualified to proffer expert testimony if they 6 have “special knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education sufficient to qualify [them] as an expert on the subject to … A manifest abuse of discretion is shown only if “ ‘ “ ‘the evidence shows that [the] witness clearly lacks qualification as an expert.’ ” ’ ” (People v. Dowl (2013) 57 Cal.4th 1079, 1089, italics omitted.)

Thompson v. Flynn Riley Bailey & Pasek CA1/4

California Court of Appeal · Dec 30, 2021

The trial court found that TDS had authority to rescind the first sale, the question of immunity under section 47 was moot, and TDS had immunity under section 47 in any event. 7 $340,340.80 … The trial court’s rationale was that the plaintiff’s successor liability theory “clearly” lacked merit. (Ibid.) The appellate court reversed.

People v. Escobar CA2/3

California Court of Appeal · Apr 18, 2025

Records “produced by the custodian or other qualified witness, together with the affidavit described in [Evidence Code] section 1561,” may establish the business records exception without the need for live witness testimony … He argues the trial court erroneously applied a prior strike to his sentence without “clearly adjudicating” the prior conviction allegation.

People v. Quiles CA6

California Court of Appeal · Dec 28, 2020

Quiles insists that the linchpin for establishing when the shooting occurred was the sound of the gunshot heard on neighbor2’s security camera, but the prosecutor failed to lay an adequate foundation to establish the accuracy … Reference to Witness’s Immunity Agreement i. Background M.M. testified under an immunity agreement.

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

People v. Kegler

197 Cal. App. 3d 72 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 19, 1987

In reaching this judgment, we establish no new principles of constitutional law. … The statute clearly rests on considerations of reliability and integrity of the criminal justice system.

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

Baker v. Charles R. Drew University of Med. and Science CA2/2

California Court of Appeal · May 25, 2016

Appellant provides no legal argument establishing an abuse of discretion. … “[A] material triable controversy is not established unless the inference is reasonable.

Quiles v. Parent

10 Cal. App. 5th 130 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 27, 2017

We conclude that the attorney fees and costs awarded to Quiles qualify as “costs” under section 1021 et seq. … Clearly, attorney fees authorized by statute are allowable as costs under section 1033.5, subdivision (a)(10)(B).

People v. Masuda CA3

California Court of Appeal · Dec 26, 2024

Applicable Legal Principles and Standard of Review Section 1001.36 “authorizes pretrial mental health diversion for defendants with qualifying mental health disorders.” (People v. … It is the defendant’s burden to establish abuse of discretion. (People v. Pacheco (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 207, 213.) Defendant argues the trial court abused its discretion in two ways.

People v. Forester

California Court of Appeal · May 10, 2022

Selga (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 113, 119 [stalking victim “qualified for protection under section 1203.097, as both a former girlfriend of defendant’s and the mother of his child”].) … Thus, “ ‘ “we will find an implied repeal ‘only when there is no rational basis for harmonizing ... two potentially conflicting statutes [citation], and the statutes are “irreconcilable, clearly repugnant, and so inconsistent

In Re Marriage of Hoffmeister

191 Cal. App. 3d 351 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 24, 1987

This finding of the trial court is clearly deficient. A trial court cannot base its finding on an assumption unsupported by the record. (In re Marriage of Hargrave, supra, 163 Cal.App.3d 346, 353 .) … In Hoffmeister I we stated for the guidance of the trial court on remand: “In order to qualify for an increase in spousal support, the supported spouse must demonstrate two things: first, that material circumstances have

Kohlmeier v. Christian Science Board of Directors

54 Cal. App. 3d 969 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 28, 1976

The order for preliminary distribution, which established her testamentary trust, was entered on September 24, 1965. … The trial court found that the trust would be subject to the imposition of the section 4942 tax unless it made, prior to September 30, 1974, a “qualifying distribution” as defined in section 4942(g) of the Internal Revenue