Case law

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.

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.

In Re Aaron D.

165 Cal. App. 4th 1546 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 19, 2008

However, Mother clearly stated that she *1553 planned to return to Texas. She was then advised that if she obtained housing in Texas she would receive referrals in that area so she could complete her service plan. … This means that, without proof that the petition was filed, Mother cannot establish that a child custody proceeding was begun in Texas courts.

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

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. Hyatt

California Court of Appeal · Mar 14, 2025

In fact, the notice had been personally served by Hyatt’s attorney, who was clearly identified as “attorney of record” on the demand. … The time Hyatt spent in custody in Riverside County jail clearly was part of his state prison sentence. The purpose of section 1381 also supports our statutory interpretation.

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).)

Citizens for Environ. Respon. v. State ex rel. 14th Dist. Ag. Assn.

California Court of Appeal · Mar 26, 2014

The Wollmer court rejected the argument, agreeing with the trial court that the city did not mitigate the project into qualifying for a categorical exemption. … nearby neighborhoods, but rather the horse and cattle manure and the potential impact on the nearby creek.22 Appellants 21 In discussing the significant effect prong of the exception, the Lewis court noted, “The evidence clearly

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.

Turner v. Fidelity Loan Concern

2 Cal. App. 122 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 31, 1905

It is claimed also, that these are the only questions involved; but this proposition is, we think, clearly untenable for several reasons : 1. … Proc., secs. 379, 382, 389) may be thus qualified, the rule "can have no application to the present ease.

Community Youth Athletic Center v. City of National City

220 Cal. App. 4th 1385 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 30, 2013

In Whitley, supra, 50 Cal.4th 1206, 1221, the Supreme Court made it clear that for purposes of applying these requirements, the court should assess the criterion of the 29 Although we have found CYAC may qualify as … The record clearly shows that CYAC received a very large number of documents from the City without the necessity of declaratory relief.

Carlson v. STATE DEPT. OF FISH AND GAME

80 Cal. Rptr. 2d 601 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 18, 1998

Only after establishing the required format of papers presented for filing, and providing that nonconforming papers may not be filed, does rule 201 proceed to the subject of local forms. … Such a local rule would be of dubious validity, since it would qualify an otherwise unqualifed state law duty to file complaints that conform to rule 201. 10 *1281 e. The clerk had no implied power to reject the filing.

People v. Harris

211 Cal. App. 3d 640 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 19, 1989

On cross-examination Ward stated at that point he was not sure if appellant was “clearly waiving” his rights, invoking them, or acting under his parents’ orders. Ward told Lt. … On the contrary, Elstad directs courts in such situations to avoid establishing a rigid rule: “[T]here is no warrant for *652 presuming coercive effect where the suspect’s initial inculpatory statement, though technically

State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance v. Brown

40 Cal. App. 3d 385 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 1, 1974

[H] s/ [signature] State Farm Insurance.” 6 According to the trial judge’s remarks during argument on the motion for nonsuit, 7 he clearly indicated that he granted the motion upon the *391 bases that the situation was controlled … Section 660 required the Insurance Commissioner to establish, by regulation, grounds upon which an insurer might cancel an automobile insurance policy.

In re E.V. CA1/2

California Court of Appeal · Mar 13, 2026

A qualified individual assessment report attached to the request documented the following. … established.”

Fisherman's Wharf Bay Cruise Corp. v. Superior Court

7 Cal. Rptr. 3d 628 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 15, 2003

plaintiff’s theories and establishing that the action was without merit. … There is nothing in the 15-ticket agreement that immunizes Blue & Gold from the sting of any antitrust violations that are alleged by Red and White.

Daro v. Superior Court

61 Cal. Rptr. 3d 716 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 3, 2007

A subdivider must clearly disclose that a purchaser of a unit in an undivided-interest subdivision has the right to rescind the purchase offer or *1096 any contract resulting from that offer prior to midnight of the third … Nor is it enough to establish standing if one has lost money or property.

Bullock v. Super. Ct.

California Court of Appeal · Jun 24, 2020

The Superior Court approved Petitioner’s release with electronic monitoring, but Petitioner did not qualify for the monitoring program and remained in custody. … Accordingly, section 859b requires dismissal unless the People established good cause for a continuance.

People v. Eulian

California Court of Appeal · Jun 29, 2016

For purposes of the exception, a statement may qualify as spontaneous if it is undertaken without deliberation or reflection. (See Farmer, supra, at p. 903.) … Fourth, we hold defendant has not carried his burden of establishing prejudice.