Case law

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.

People v. May

65 Cal. Rptr. 3d 873 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 19, 2007

(a) [describing procedures to be completed by the Department of Mental Health and the Board of Prison Terms]), section 2972, subdivision (d) clearly describes such a role for trial courts presiding over recommitment hearings … However, *362 the Legislature has established a separate statutory scheme for handling the inpatient and outpatient treatment of MDO’s, and it would be consistent with this separate scheme for the Legislature to prescribe

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.

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. 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

County of Mono v. City of L.A.

California Court of Appeal · Jul 26, 2022

In interpreting CEQA, we accord the Guidelines great weight except where they are clearly unauthorized or erroneous.’ ” (Save Tara v. … It was instead the product of a lower-level staff decision, so it qualifies as an informal or ministerial administrative action.

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

Moghadam v. Regents of the University of California

169 Cal. App. 4th 466 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 19, 2008

“This circuit has held that the fact that a file or document contains an individual’s name is not sufficient to qualify the information as a record. [Citation.] … Rather, it is clearly about Aerospace, a private corporation, and not an individual within the meaning of the statute.

Foster v. Kaweah Delta Medical Center CA5

California Court of Appeal · Apr 26, 2021

County of Fresno (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 94, this court concluded four conditions must be satisfied to establish government liability under Monell: “The plaintiff must establish that: (1) the plaintiff was deprived of a constitutional … Sections 340.5 and 352.1 Section 340.5 establishes the statute of limitations in medical malpractice lawsuits.

Fernandez v. California Department of Pesticide Regulation

164 Cal. App. 4th 1214 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 15, 2008

Court found it highly persuasive that at the times relevant there, the Board had little or no medical expertise, while the Department of Health Services employed qualified health experts. … California Code of Regulations, title 3, section 6450 as a whole clearly applied to worker safety. Its introductory paragraph defined “fumigation-handling activities.”

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.

People v. Mercado CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · Feb 27, 2026

Analysis The law governing claims of prosecutorial misconduct is well established. … In short, the record clearly indicates that the trial court would have reached the same conclusion even if it evaluated the enhancements under section 1385. Remand, therefore, is not warranted.5 (See People v.

People v. Arevalo CA5

California Court of Appeal · May 14, 2025

He also argued since he “clearly qualifies for resentencing pursuant to Senate Bill No[s.] 81, 567, 600, 620, 1393 and Penal Code Section []1385, he is eligible for a vacation of his weapon enhancement and a modification … He asserts he did “not qualify for CRC 4.421(b)(4),” and his “prior record used to impose both upper terms is completely unrelated and insignificant to [his] case.”

People v. Rodriguez CA5

California Court of Appeal · Sep 24, 2021

The Court’s Finding that Rodriguez Would Benefit from Treatment Finally, the People assert on appeal that the trial court failed to make a finding that “the opinion of a qualified mental health expert established that … This was clearly erroneous. I also note the version of Code of Civil Procedure section 963 that existed at the time Murphy was decided was repealed in 1968.

Citizens for Open Government v. City of Lodi

205 Cal. App. 4th 296 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 28, 2012

Only if the public interest in nondisclosure clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure does the deliberative process privilege spring into existence. … Lodi First is correct the city never established the conditions for creation of the privilege.

Busse v. United Panam Financial Corp.

222 Cal. App. 4th 1028 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 8, 2014

INTRODUCTION Occasionally we are faced with a difficult question of statutory interpretation that qualifies as a “Halbert’s Lumber issue.” (E.g. Halbert’s Lumber, Inc. v. … Taking our cue from W.B., we find no evidence the Legislature wanted, in subdivision (b) to establish or even recognize a monetary remedy that hadn’t previously been there (at least after 1931).

F & P Growers Ass'n v. Agricultural Labor Relations Board

168 Cal. App. 3d 667 · California Court of Appeal · May 23, 1985

Relations Bd. (1979) 92 Cal.App.3d 365, 374 [ 155 Cal.Rptr. 213 ] found the NLRB precedent with respect to decertification to be inapplicable to section 1156.7, since there is no federal statute comparable to the provision establishing … shall provide the employee with the opportunity to vote against representation by a labor organization by providing an appropriate space designated ‘No Labor Organizations.’ [¶] (b) Any other labor organization shall be qualified

Gene M. v. Annette G. CA4/2

California Court of Appeal · Jun 21, 2013

(Father) petitioned the family court to establish the paternity of his daughter, A.G. (Fam. Code, § 7630.)1 The family court found Father is A.G. … Thus, the juvenile court concluded the weight of policy and logic “clearly favor a finding that the biological father—[Father]—is the father of [A.G.]”

Wheeler v. Gregg

90 Cal. App. 2d 348 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 28, 1949

There was also testimony given by qualified experts that none of plaintiffs’ properties were adversely affected “value-wise,” by reason of the action of the city council in granting the conditional use permit to defendant … [Manufacturing or commercial operations in established zones not enjoinable nor deemed nuisance: Operation producing offensive odors.]