Case law

In Re Marriage of Feldner

40 Cal. App. 4th 617 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 28, 1995

The character of the debt is clearly community because the contract giving rise to the debt was, indeed, “made” during the marriage. … Celena presented nothing to rebut, limit, or qualify that showing. Nor did Celena present any such evidence in her motion for reconsideration.

People v. Lewis

172 Cal. App. 4th 1426 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 13, 2009

Appellant was farther away from Bryant when he was arrested than he had been during his transaction with the woman, but Bryant could still see him clearly. … Given this evidence, the location from which the observations were made clearly was not material.

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.

In re Ernesto L.

California Court of Appeal · Jul 27, 2022

Ernesto then filed a brief arguing that section 602.3 did not apply to him because he did not commit a qualifying offense. … Although Ernesto argued otherwise below, it is uncontested on appeal that he committed a qualifying offense under section 602.3. (See Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd.

Palacin v. All State Insurance

14 Cal. Rptr. 3d 731 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 22, 2004

This more limited definition of the word “improvements” is further qualified by the statement in section 8.3 that those “improvements” must have been added “by an Owner.” … Although Allstate may have had in mind precisely the nature of the real property coverage it was intending to cover based on its specialized knowledge of the condominium insurance industry, it did not clearly communicate

PharmBlue Cal. v. Dept. of Health Care Services CA2/3

California Court of Appeal · Jan 19, 2023

Here, the terms of PharmBlue’s contracts with the Clinics establish that the pharmacy was the Clinics’ agent and assumed the Clinics’ duties under the 340B Program. … The HRSA’s guidance clearly supports a finding that PharmBlue acted as the Clinics’ agent under the 340B Program.

Sanders v. CEG CORP.

95 Cal. App. 3d 779 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 23, 1979

the summons and complaint were served upon CEG (Dec. 7, 1977), CEG was engaged in no manufacturing or production activities of any kind and had no employees; CEG had no contact within the State of California and was not qualified … From the scheme of distribution that they had established, it was clearly foreseeable to Arrow and CEG that its hydrohammer would be used in California.

Neuber v. Royal Realty Co.

86 Cal. App. 2d 596 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 7, 1948

Defendant Herman Helbush is and at all times herein pertinent was president of the corporation, owner of all its outstanding stock except for one or two qualifying shares, and in charge of the management and operation of … Over a long period of time it has been the rule in this state that no statute shall be held retroactive unless such intention clearly appears.

Meyer v. Glenmoor Homes, Inc.

246 Cal. App. 2d 242 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 9, 1966

It is clearly apparent from the foregoing that in order to have authority which is implied in fact the agent, be he president or general manager of a corporation, or both, must be performing an act which is “appropriate in … At the trial cross-complainant introduced evidence sufficient to establish a prima facie case.

People v. Villegas CA2/7

California Court of Appeal · Mar 8, 2016

In denying the motion, the trial court clearly rejected defendant’s post-conviction statement and accepted Shook’s account of what he had been told, finding that “Shook obviously selected a strategy that was consistent with … While this may be a relevant factor in evaluating the substance of a claim, it does not by itself establish a claim.

Amarawansa v. Superior Court

49 Cal. App. 4th 1251 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 3, 1996

On July 26,1996, petitioners filed the instant petition for writ of mandate, alleging the superior court had breached its contract with panel attorneys as set forth in the May 11,1993, memorandum establishing the $45 hourly … Clearly, as to services performed prior to July 1, 1996, petitioners were entitled to the compensation stated in the May 1993 and December 1995 memoranda.

Happy Nails & Spa of Fashion Valley v. Labor Commissioner of the State of California CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · Apr 25, 2016

In order to establish that conduct by a governmental official has violated due process, more than a simple mistake or negligence must be shown. (See Daniels v. Williams (1985) 474 U.S. 327, 331-332; Mobley v. … Martin (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 324, 332-333.) 2 Were Happy Nails seeking damages from the Commissioner, its claims would also be barred by her absolute and qualified immunity as a participant in judicial or quasi-

In Re Finley

1 Cal. App. 198 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 20, 1905

It is therefore of high importance that each proposition should be fully and clearly stated and decided, and this will, we trust, excuse any seeming verbosity. … This is established by an infinite number of authorities, from a few of which we will borrow apt quotations.

Mize-Kurzman v. Marin Community College District

202 Cal. App. 4th 832 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 10, 2012

This instruction was erroneous under both federal law and established California law. … “[T]he collateral source rule is well established in this state, and in fact California has long been described as a ‘firm proponent of the “collateral source rule.” ’ (Hrnjak v.

People v. Boyle

164 Cal. App. 4th 348 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 26, 2008

We determine whether the enacting body [7] meant to establish civil proceedings. … Boyle argues that because the voters also enacted other, clearly penal measures when adopting Proposition 83's amendments to the SVPA, we should consider the other overtly penal aspects of the initiative as evidence of the

GCP Management v. City of Oakland CA1/4

California Court of Appeal · Nov 1, 2013

Clearly, GCP was on notice that a prompt investigation of conditions on the Property was warranted. (Compare Whiting v. … Since the City‘s actions were authorized by law, the trial court concluded that the City was also immune from liability for trespass.

Way v. Superior Court of San Diego Cty.

74 Cal. App. 3d 165 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 19, 1977

All presumptions and intendments favor the validity of section 1170.2; it must be upheld unless its unconstitutionality clearly, positively and unmistakably appears. ( Lockheed Aircraft Corp. v. … There is nothing sacred about a final judgment of imprisonment which immunizes it from the Legislature's power to achieve equality among past and new offenders.

Property Cal. SCJLW One Corp. v. Leamy

California Court of Appeal · Aug 9, 2018

“However, even when the witness qualifies as an expert, he or she does not possess a carte blanche to express any opinion within the area of expertise. [Citation.] … Even if true, that assertion was (and is) clearly disputed by MMB,8 and defendants do not argue that MMB lacked good faith in pursuing settlement of the dispute. Finally, Jordan v.

Simple Avo Paradise Ranch, LLC v. Southern Cal. Edison Co.

California Court of Appeal · May 23, 2024

We do not believe such regulation would immunize municipal utilities from inverse condemnation liability under the theory that they were no longer able to spread the cost of public improvements.” … Simple Avo’s position rests almost entirely on Barham and Pacific Bell, which are established law that we follow.

Andrade v. Jennings

54 Cal. App. 4th 307 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 31, 1997

Booth also told Gray Cary “this is clearly an attempt on your part and that of Andrade’s lawyer to manufacture a claim in the excess layer where none exists.” … However, substantial evidence and reasonable inferences established that Jorge and Andrade crafted the settlement with the specific aim to injure Jennings.