Case law

Velasquez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.

California Court of Appeal · Dec 5, 2023

Under this interpretation, the exemption in section 3301, subdivision (b) would not apply and Velasquez would qualify as an employee. … Appeals Bd., supra, 8 Cal.App.3d at pp. 979, 983 [county employment of inmate doing road work established by “gratuity” of “credit slips” worth 50 cents per day]; but see Hoppmann, at p. 1126 [persons receiving “wages not

Wehsener v. Jernigan

California Court of Appeal · Dec 28, 2022

Once proclaimed and established they exist as facts for all time and in all places. … Clearly, the facts and legal issues presented in Karen C. are nothing like those before us now.

Marriage of Cady & Gamick

California Court of Appeal · Sep 25, 2024

express declaration of legislative intent, we will find an implied repeal ‘only when there is no rational basis for harmonizing the two potentially conflicting statutes [citation], and the statutes are “irreconcilable, clearly … Code, § 206 as establishing a duty and the Welf. & Inst. Code as establishing the collection procedure], disapproved on another ground in County of San Bernardino v. Simmons, supra, 46 Cal.2d at p. 399.)

Bradley v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc.

California Court of Appeal · May 28, 2021

But the governing statutes do not establish a separate universe of administrative rules and procedures that only the Board has the expertise to interpret. The exhaustion doctrine therefore does not apply. … Bradley does not provide any reason to conclude that those entities would be immune from a Board enforcement remedy simply because they were following orders from their parent company.

In Re Estate of Fain

89 Cal. Rptr. 2d 618 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 21, 1999

Judge Choate, as a retired superior court judge, clearly met the requirement of a sworn judicial officer and was empowered to act. … The court finds that this evidence was insufficient to establish that there had been no breach of fiduciary duty.”

County of Los Angeles v. GLENDORA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT

185 Cal. App. 4th 817 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 15, 2010

“Project Area” 1 was established in 1974, followed by Project Areas 2 and 3 in 1976. Project Area 4, which was established in 1982, “is no longer operational” and is not at issue in this case. … “The statute clearly intends for evidence of the physical condition’s impact on economic viability to be in the record to support the finding.” (Id. at p. 555.)

People v. Alvara CA2/2

California Court of Appeal · May 20, 2015

The evidence established that defendants participated in a group attack against a lone victim and beat him into unconsciousness as he attempted to fight back. … In such a case, the defendant seeking severance bears the burden to clearly establish that a joint trial poses a substantial danger of prejudice; and even then, because of the preference for joint trials, the trial court

Butler v. Superior Court

93 Cal. Rptr. 2d 468 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 7, 2000

Clearly, the person will not be in custody under the jurisdiction of the Department of Corrections at the time the recommitment process begins; rather, the person will be *1181 in custody under the jurisdiction of the DMH … (See In re Parker (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1453, 1467 [ 71 Cal.Rptr.2d 167 ] [in light of Legislature’s use of language providing that qualifying SVP offenses could be proved with documentary evidence, its failure to provide

Marriage of Greenway CA4/3

217 Cal. App. 4th 628 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 3, 2013

Lyle stated his recovery had been hampered because his immune system was weakened by the chemotherapy treatments he received to treat lymphoma. … Lyle‟s sequence of reasoned responses, regarding one topic, clearly suggests his thinking is organized and logical.

Woodruff v. County of San Diego In-Home Supportive Services Public Authority CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · Jun 24, 2014

State University & Colleges (1982) 33 Cal.3d 211, 219 (Tiernan) [if the Legislature had intended a particular effect, it would have clearly said so].) … The requirements that section 12301.24 imposes on "prospective providers" are clearly different from those that it imposes on "current providers."

People v. Perez

California Court of Appeal · Sep 7, 2021

The clause “[e]xcept as provided in paragraph (2)” clearly identifies an exception to the mandatory rule stated in subdivision (b)(1) of section 1473.7. … To establish the type of “error” required by section 1473.7, a defendant need not establish ineffective assistance of counsel.

Chenoweth v. Chambers

33 Cal. App. 104 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 27, 1917

He duly qualified as such assemblyman and performed his duties as a member of the assembly at the forty-first regular session thereof and also at the special session held in January, 1916. … W. 308 ] : “The term for which respondent was elected is clearly defined by the charter and the language, ‘the term for which he was elected,’ has a clear and well-defined meaning.

People v. Smith

California Court of Appeal · Jun 9, 2017

However, this is clearly not what Grimes states. … Under Grimes, none of these statements qualifies as a statement against Smith's interest.

People v. Walker CA2/2

California Court of Appeal · Nov 3, 2023

amended sections 188 and 189, the laws pertaining to felony murder and murder under the natural 4 Defendant and Williams had been charged with codefendant, Juan Antonio Villatoro, but prior to trial Villatoro was granted immunity … When a section 1172.6 petition alleges the three qualifying conditions specified in subdivision (a)(1) through (3), the trial court is required to take the allegations as true, appoint counsel if requested, and entertain

Friends of the River v. Sites Project Authority CA3

California Court of Appeal · Sep 20, 2024

The petition also noted the project qualified for judicial streamlining under Senate Bill No. 149 (2023-2024 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2023, ch. 60, § 1). … “We give the Guidelines great weight in interpreting CEQA, except where they are clearly unauthorized or erroneous.” (Center for Biological Diversity v.

Case v. Lazben Financial Co.

121 Cal. Rptr. 2d 405 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 10, 2002

Accordingly, the activities of one branch of government are not immune from regulation or oversight by another branch. (People v. Bunn, supra, 27 Cal.4th 1, 16 .) … Clearly, trial courts do not make applications, motions, or renewals of motions to themselves.

Baral v. Schnitt

California Court of Appeal · Feb 5, 2015

“Thus, even if Hunter is correct that the act of hiring a weather anchor does not qualify as an exercise of free speech rights (an issue we need not decide), he has provided no argument as to why such conduct does not qualify … Wallace explained that “Oasis clearly holds that, where a cause of action (count) is based on protected activity, the entire cause of action may proceed as long as the plaintiff shows a probability of prevailing on at least

People v. Booker

69 Cal. App. 3d 654 · California Court of Appeal · May 11, 1977

Appellant’s admitted motive for the killing of the mother was to prevent her from identifying him, which establishes the killing as in furtherance of the kidnaping for robbery. … Carney of the public defender’s office, because “I don’t feel that he is qualified to give me his best.”

City of Rancho Cucamonga v. MacKzum

228 Cal. App. 3d 929 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 20, 1991

The court announced, “[G]ur sole function is to evaluate article XIII A legally in the light of established constitutional standards. … This clearly evidences a grant of authority to the Legislature to enact implementing legislation.

People v. Balogh CA4/2

California Court of Appeal · Nov 13, 2025

Such evidence is clearly relevant to establishing defendant’s identity13 as the perpetrator of the charged offense and, as a result, admissible for a purpose other than to show defendant’s criminal disposition. … Kipp (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1100, 1126 [failure to object to admissible evidence does not establish ineffective assistance]; People v.