Case law

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.

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.

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.

City of Salinas v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.

California Court of Appeal · Aug 20, 2025

¶] (a) The date of injury.” 3 no finding of industrial permanent disability or opinion as to industrial causation for his cardiac condition, until the September 2021 report of qualified … The Board counters that Zurich does not clearly repudiate Shipley but confirms the nonjurisdictional nature of the 60-day deadline.

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.

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.

People v. Superior Court

68 Cal. Rptr. 3d 800 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 4, 2007

Here, in 2001, law enforcement had only a report of an offense that was barred by the statute of limitations and did not qualify for a limitations extension under section 803, subdivision (f). … Summary Dig., p. 142) states: "(1) Existing law establishes statutory limitation periods for *808 commencing criminal actions, as specified.

Mattson Technology v. Applied Materials

California Court of Appeal · Nov 1, 2023

Using his laptop, he sent over a dozen e-mails attaching highly confidential Applied documents—many of them clearly marked as such—to two personal email accounts. … A single overlapping question of law or fact may qualify as a “controversy” sufficient to require imposition of a stay. (Heritage Provider Network, Inc. v.

People v. Matthews CA4/2

California Court of Appeal · Dec 18, 2014

The record in this case amply established that defendant was disqualified from resentencing because he had disqualifying prior convictions. (§ 1170.126, subd. (e).) … The record clearly reflects that defendant had a prior conviction for forcible oral copulation.

People v. Banner

California Court of Appeal · Jan 21, 2022

Finally, Banner states, “[I]f the Legislature intended for the defendant to make a request for pretrial diversion, the Legislature would have included such a requirement in the statute.” 8 But the Legislature clearly did … The People respond Banner “cannot establish … ineffective assistance of counsel” “[b]ecause the record does not establish [he] was eligible for pretrial mental health diversion ….” We agree with the People. A.

Serri v. Santa Clara University

226 Cal. App. 4th 830 · California Court of Appeal · May 28, 2014

In addition, the article is clearly hearsay. … Code, § 48.) “ ‘The malice necessary to defeat a qualified privilege is “actual malice” which is established by a showing that the publication was motivated by hatred or ill will towards the plaintiff or by a showing that

Clayton v. Marin Mortgage Bankers CA1/5

California Court of Appeal · Apr 30, 2014

First, defense counsel’s oral motion to strike did not clearly delineate those portions of the testimony defendants sought to have stricken—counsel made only a general reference to the testimony concerning securities and … On the record before us, defendants have not established the trial court ruled incorrectly on the statutory cause of action. (See Ballard, 41 Cal.3d at p. 574.)

Carruth v. City of Madera

233 Cal. App. 2d 688 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 20, 1965

board of education, or school district, shall incur any indebtedness or liability in any manner or for any purpose exceeding in any year the income and revenue provided for such year, without the assent of two-thirds of the qualified … Clearly, this reviewing court cannot modify the judgment by requiring city to perform the agreement, but equity impels an alternative judgment giving city an opportunity to install the facilities within a reasonable time

Santa Clara County Department of Family and Children's Services v. J.R.

235 Cal. App. 4th 1102 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 9, 2015

After being qualified as an expert in risk assessment, the social worker testified that, as far as she knew, father had been continually engaging in alcohol abuse. … A petition for modification is “committed to the sound discretion of the juvenile court, and the trial court’s ruling should not be disturbed on appeal unless an abuse of discretion is clearly established. [Citations.]”

California First Bank v. Lee

108 Cal. App. 3d 461 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 22, 1980

Stokley’s estate, consisting of assets valued at approximately $616,000, was held in a revocable inter vivos trust established by her in 1953 and amended in 1962. … Thus, the 1976 order could not qualify as an order directing or allowing payment of an attorney’s fee, for, as in Elftman, the executor had not even retained special counsel.

People v. White CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · May 28, 2026

Analysis Detective Clark’s qualifications were not so “ ‘ “ ‘clearly lack[ing]’ ” ’ ” (Farnam, supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 162) as to establish that the trial court abused its discretion in finding her qualified to testify … We therefore conclude White has not met his burden to establish a Brady violation.

In Re Calhoun

18 Cal. Rptr. 3d 315 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 31, 2004

I, § l.) 20 “That right clearly extends to the right to refuse antipsychotic drugs. [Citations.]” (In re Qawi, supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 14 .) … Qualifying MDO crimes include sexually violent offenses within the meaning of the SVPA. (See §§ 6600 subd. (b), 6600.1; Pen. Code, § 2962, subd. (e)(2)(F)-(K).)

Farmland Protection Alliance v. County of Yolo

California Court of Appeal · Nov 3, 2021

reduce the potential for impacts to the [beetle], the following mitigation shall be required: “Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle “(a) Prior to construction at any time of the year, a qualified … Guidelines great weight except where they are clearly unauthorized or erroneous.” (Muzzy Ranch Co. v.

Stuard v. Stuard

244 Cal. App. 4th 768 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 5, 2016

Troxel does not support defendant's suggestion that a fit parent's decisions are immune from judicial review. … The trial court qualified the order by noting it was “not imposing a quantitative measurement of participation (i.e., how many sessions).