Case law

Tsakopoulos Investments, LLC v. County of Sacramento

California Court of Appeal · Sep 7, 2023

“We give the Guidelines great weight in interpreting CEQA, except where they are clearly unauthorized or erroneous.” … Clearly, the County did not employ the same methodology.

People v. Hudson CA3

California Court of Appeal · Feb 11, 2014

Second requested instruction: “A qualified patient may possess no more than eight ounces of dried marijuana per qualified patient. … Even if you were allowed to, the law is crystal clear you cannot sell marijuana to anybody for any reason if you’re making a profit . . . the number[s] here show clearly the defendant was making a profit.”

In re S.N. CA4/2

California Court of Appeal · Jan 16, 2014

The testimony established Minor was personally served with a copy of the Injunction, although section 166, subdivision (a)(4), does not require proof of service to establish a charge of contempt, only knowledge of the order … We disagree because: (1) Officer Osorio was qualified as an expert by the trial court and thus authorized to render an opinion, and (2) the evidence of O.A.’s gang membership was established by O.A.’s declarations against

Greenfield v. Fritz Companies, Inc.

98 Cal. Rptr. 2d 530 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 21, 2000

The American Law Institute was clearly of this opinion when it formulated the misrepresentation provisions for the Second Restatement of Torts. … They are trying to secure a like immunity from common law exposure. As the preceding discussion demonstrates, there is no logical or legal reason why defendants should be given such an exemption.

Hightower v. Superior Court of Los Angeles Cty.

104 Cal. Rptr. 2d 209 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 28, 2001

‘As a consequence, arbitration awards are generally immune from judicial review. … The purchase price of $47 million is established by the prior offer of [O’Dowd] dated June 26, 1998. “2.

Topolewski v. AECOM Energy & Construction CA2/4

California Court of Appeal · May 2, 2023

Further, according to Topolewski, he had established that AECOM acted with an improper purpose in maintaining the abstracts, thus establishing he had a reasonable probability of prevailing on his abuse of process claim. … AECOM’s judgment enforcement efforts are clearly privileged under Civil Code section 47, subdivision (b).

People v. Ryan CA5

California Court of Appeal · Mar 2, 2026

At the hearing on defendant’s motion, the prosecutor argued that the behavioral health therapist’s qualifications had not been established, her report was hearsay, and defendant selected a vulnerable victim for his crime … But where a court’s ruling clearly expresses the legal and factual basis for its resolution of controverted issues, an appellate court will not imply findings the trial court did not make.

People v. Ingram

California Court of Appeal · Sep 12, 2024

Pedophilic disorder can be a qualifying mental disorder. (See People v. McKee (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 1325, 1344 [60 to 66 percent of SVPs have been diagnosed with pedophilia]; People v. … Before discussing 17 these arguments, we note Ingram acknowledges, “Clearly, the standard SVP CONREP program is not appropriate” for him.

Hom v. Clark

221 Cal. App. 2d 622 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 30, 1963

The reviewing court there cited the above rule declared by Scott , but held proper an instruction on presumption of care because the trial court had carefully qualified the instruction by making it applicable only if the … visible, he sees it, and that when he listens he hears that which is clearly audible.

Southern California Edison Co. v. Public Utilities Commission

125 Cal. Rptr. 2d 211 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 30, 2002

The starting gas index price shall be established as an average of index gas prices for the same annual periods.” The Legislature did not prescribe a specific formula. … In subdivision (e), the Legislature directed the Commission to amend its Rules of Practice and Procedure to establish procedures for handling petitions under section 1708.5.

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.

People v. Summers

86 Cal. Rptr. 2d 388 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 13, 1999

A highly sophisticated set of rules, qualified by all sorts of ifs, ands, and buts and requiring the drawing of subtle nuances and hairline distinctions, may be the sort of heady stuff upon which the facile minds of lawyers … holding reflects that value judgment: It explicitly recognized that it was adopting a generalization that a driver’s “arm’s reach” usually would include the entire passenger compartment of the car, and then said, “In order to establish

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.

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.

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.

P. v. Madeira CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · Jun 14, 2013

the prior conviction as a strike qualifies that prior conviction as a 'serious' offense." … We may not impose the enhancement on Madiera, however, because the record does not clearly establish the conditions necessary for its imposition.

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.

Privato Security Co. v. Sidman CA6

California Court of Appeal · Aug 17, 2015

Sidman informed the Board about the PTO payments to Smith and Williams and sought to establish a company policy prohibiting such payments. … Sidman’s two letters to shareholders and his public website contained statements clearly made in anticipation of litigation.

Piedmont Publishing Co. v. Rogers

193 Cal. App. 2d 171 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 19, 1961

Chief Justice Gibson, speaking for a unanimous Supreme Court, clearly stated the rule. … But, since the rule itself is one of equity, it is limited and qualified by considerations of fairness, convenience, and practicability.

People v. Barnes CA5

California Court of Appeal · Apr 21, 2026

While a testifying expert must be qualified by special knowledge, skill, and experience, the prosecution was not required to establish Iturriria’s expert qualifications in the absence of an objection from the defense. … The record establishes Iturriria was qualified to testify based on his background as an EMT, serving as a highway patrol officer for 21 years, specialization in driving under the influence cases and investigations, and certification