Case law

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).

Speedboat JV Partners v. Capital One CA3

California Court of Appeal · Aug 25, 2023

Mao (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 301, 322 [a qualified witness need not have been present at every transaction to establish the business records exception; he or she need only be familiar with the procedures followed].) … On appeal, we will reverse a trial court’s determination that a sufficient foundation has been laid to qualify evidence as a business record only if the trial court clearly abused its discretion. (People v.

Nejadian v. County of Los Angeles

California Court of Appeal · Oct 1, 2019

However, the downgrading of his rating on one of the categories in his performance evaluation clearly is an adverse employment action. … ‘[I]f the word “substantial” means anything at all, it clearly implies that such evidence must be of ponderable legal significance. . . .

People v. Kuhns

61 Cal. App. 3d 735 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 8, 1976

We note the exemption only applies to a projectionist, otherwise qualifying, who exhibits, or possesses with intent to exhibit, any obscene matter. … For knowledge may be established by circumstantial evidence.

Bigelow v. Superior Court

208 Cal. App. 3d 1127 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 20, 1989

This instruction was not qualified by a reminder not to find on special circumstances unless the jury had convicted of murder. The problem was then compounded by the trial court’s failure to take prompt action. … “No particular form of verdict is required, so long as it clearly *1135 indicates the intention of the jury . . . .” (People v. Reddick (1959) 176 Cal.App.2d 806, 821 [ 1 Cal.Rptr. 767 ].)

Estate of Bullock

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.

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

Great Oaks v. Santa Clara Valley Water Dist.

California Court of Appeal · Mar 26, 2015

While we do not mean to suggest that this is the only way a fee might fall within our hypothetical “regulatory” rubric, we did indicate that any such regulatory purpose would have to be “clearly established.” … Nor does anything in the District Act “clearly establish[]”that it has a regulatory purpose. Nothing in the notice to owners explaining the basis for the fee alluded to any such objective.

Yeoman v. Department of Motor Vehicles

273 Cal. App. 2d 71 · California Court of Appeal · May 16, 1969

In that respect, the Legislature has clearly given its approval to Board’s interpretation by the enactment of section 12517, Vehicle Code, and section 16855, Education Code. … The school bus driver’s certificate shall be issued only to applicants qualified by an examination prescribed by the DMV. . . . Such certificate shall be valid for not to exceed two years. ’ ’

Manriquez-Gonzales v. Impact Logistics CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · Mar 17, 2026

present “on nearly every occasion” of the deliveries at issue in the case, she received the records related to those deliveries in due course from their sources, her testimony was supported by other testimony, and she was “clearly … Merely reading the personnel files is not sufficient to qualify them as business records.

Feduniak v. California Coastal Commission

56 Cal. Rptr. 3d 591 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 27, 2007

The government is not immune from the doctrine, and it may be applied “ ‘where justice and right require it.’ ” (Mansell, supra, 3 Cal.3d at p. 493 .) … Moreover, the record does not establish that the Feduniaks even saw the county’s finding.

Choy v. Robertson CA1/3

California Court of Appeal · Dec 23, 2015

He claims that the parties’ lease clearly establishes that any property affixed to the leased premises, whether installed by the tenant or the landlord, became the property of the landlord. … Plaintiff’s real complaint appears to be that items removed by defendants did not qualify as trade fixtures and thus were not the defendants’ property.

W.M. Barr & Co. v. South Coast Air Quality Management District

207 Cal. App. 4th 406 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 28, 2012

Standard of Review CEQA establishes the basic standard of review in a mandamus proceeding. … ‘Multi-purpose Solvents’ also do not include any products making any representation that the product may be used as, or is suitable for use as a consumer product which qualifies under another definition in California Code

Estate of Mabury

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

People v. Lavalle CA1/1

California Court of Appeal · May 13, 2015

To establish a collective-cultivation defense under section 11362.775, a defendant must “show that members of [a] collective or cooperative: (1) are qualified patients who have been prescribed marijuana for medicinal purposes … Instead, it held that “the absence of formality does not foreclose establishment of the collective cultivation defense in a case involving a joint cultivation endeavor confined to two qualified patients with no outside distribution

Horn v. Rand CA2/5

California Court of Appeal · Mar 9, 2015

Testimony by Rand’s expert as to the standard of care clearly tended to prove an issue in dispute. (Evid. Code, §§ 210, 351.) … Moreover, “California common law has recognized a narrow exception to arbitral immunity: the immunity does not apply to the arbitrator’s breach of contract by failing to make any decision at all. (Baar v.

Davis v. Southern Cal. Edison

California Court of Appeal · May 5, 2015

The NEM Solar Generation Program SCE established the NEM program pursuant to section 2827. … The Constitution confers broad authority on the commission to regulate utilities, including the power to fix rates, establish rules, hold various types of hearings, award reparation, and establish its own procedures.’”

Torrecillas v. Fitness International

California Court of Appeal · Jul 21, 2020

The Stokesberry declaration 9 establishes this fact. The text of the agreement does as well. … Torrecillas does not claim indigence or show he would qualify for a fee exception. Even if he did, again, the fee agreement is keyed to what an employee would have to pay to file in court.

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.

People v. Compian CA2/3

California Court of Appeal · Aug 7, 2025

“Taken together, these precepts establish that a trial court does not abuse its discretion unless its decision is so irrational or arbitrary that no reasonable person could agree with it.” (Ibid. … Therefore, the trial court clearly was aware it had discretion to dismiss an enhancement.