Case law

People v. Gilbert

26 Cal. App. 2d 1 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 18, 1938

No rule of criminal law and procedure is better established in this state. … Clearly the reversal of this case has no bearing upon or materiality in connection with the determination of the appeal now before us.

People v. Hubbell

54 Cal. App. 2d 49 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 14, 1942

The acts testified to in two instances clearly came within the purview of section 288 and in the other instance of section 288a of the Penal Code. … The testimony, as we read it, is corroborative of the other evidence tending to establish guilt.

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.

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.

Johar v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board

California Court of Appeal · Sep 13, 2022

. [¶] As of now, you do not qualify. [¶] Please stop. We’re done here. … And to the extent there was an informal leave protocol established by the parties’ prior conduct, Johar followed it.

Torres v. City of Montebello

234 Cal. App. 4th 382 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 13, 2015

Montebello voters also qualified a recall of City Council members Urteaga and Salazar, resulting in a February 2010 special election. … The Contract clearly implicates the “general purpose” of section 40602. (City of Orange, supra, 103 Cal.App.4th at pp. 54-55.)

People v. Villa CA5

California Court of Appeal · Mar 24, 2022

“Where … the abstract first identified the statute by section number, then separately and clearly described only one of the two means by which the statute can be violated, the court was not required to assume the descriptive … Delgado concluded the prosecution satisfied its burden to establish the conviction was a serious felony, based on entries in the official abstract of judgment that sufficiently established defendant’s conviction was for assault

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).

Barker v. Fox & Associates

240 Cal. App. 4th 333 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 10, 2015

They have also provided their communications and documents to this Court, and by way of their declarations have established the basis for their admissibility. … clearly by and to a ‘person interested’ in the information, it is not clear that the statements are privileged.

People v. Sorden

California Court of Appeal · Dec 15, 2021

As we explain, Appellant did not meet his burden of establishing reversible error. … (c)(4)), “courts may not insert qualifying provisions not intended by the Legislature.” (People v. Goodson (1990) 226 Cal.App.3d 277, 281-282; see City of Cotati v.

Doe v. Roman Catholic Archbishop etc.

247 Cal. App. 4th 953 · California Court of Appeal · May 26, 2016

A demurrer may be sustained on statute of limitations grounds if the time bar “‘“‘clearly and affirmatively appear[s] on the face of the complaint.’”’” (Lee v. … We conclude it is not, and conclude that a 11 payment must be solely compensatory in order to qualify as “damages” under section 11583.

Rosenfeld v. Abraham Joshua Heschel Day School, Inc.

226 Cal. App. 4th 886 · California Court of Appeal · May 28, 2014

Defendant has failed to establish a job related requirement for this policy or to demonstrate a business necessity for this policy.” … In “civil actions generally, the right to recover damages is qualified by the common law doctrine of avoidable consequences. [¶] The Restatement Second of Torts states the doctrine this way: ‘[O]ne injured by the tort of

People v. Cadogan CA4/3

California Court of Appeal · Aug 11, 2021

First, ‘“[t]he burden is on the party attacking the sentence to clearly show that the sentencing decision was irrational or arbitrary. [Citation.] … Taken together, these precepts establish that a trial court does not abuse its discretion unless its decision is so irrational or arbitrary that no reasonable person could agree with it.” (People v.

Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Department of Water Resources

5 Cal. Rptr. 3d 283 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 2, 2003

D0202052) establishing utility charges incorporating DWR’s November 2001 revenue requirement. … plain meaning of a statute and resort to its legislative history to aid in interpretation when applying the literal meaning of the statutory language ‘would inevitably (1) produce absurd consequences which the Legislature clearly

Gradetech v. City of San Jose CA1/2

California Court of Appeal · Jan 10, 2023

If Gradetech’s interpretation of the anti-SLAPP statute were correct, the City argues, a government contractor could immunize itself from False Claims Act liability for fraudulent claims submissions simply by sending attorney … But Wollersheim articulated no rule barring compulsory cross-complaints from qualifying as SLAPPs.

Kerns v. CSE Insurance Group

130 Cal. Rptr. 2d 754 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 19, 2003

Without question, respondent’s second motion for summary judgment did not qualify as a motion for reconsideration under section 1008, subdivision (a), having been brought more than 10 days after service of written notice … “Clearly, trial courts do not make applications, motions, or renewals of motions themselves.

People v. Harris

105 Cal. App. 3d 204 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 29, 1980

. *222 I Probable Cause for Warrantless Arrest The Supreme Court of this state has often recited the criteria that establish probable cause for arrest without a warrant. … The applicability of Chadwick to cases such as ours has been clearly asserted by the California Supreme Court in Minjares, supra, 24 Cal. 3d 410 .

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.”

Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. D.C.

188 Cal. App. 4th 147 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 2, 2010

It is based solely on the speculation that, “once Jose clearly understands that adoption by the foster mother will mean the loss of his relationship with grandfather and *159 with his mother, he may well reject both the placement … Here, Jose (and everyone else) knows he is not grandfather’s son, and grandfather has never suggested to anyone that he is Jose’s father. 14 Consequently, grandfather cannot qualify as a presumed father. One final note.

Buchalter v. HR E&I Co. CA1/1

California Court of Appeal · Dec 18, 2025

As a consequence, “an arbitral award should ordinarily stand immune from judicial scrutiny.” (Id. at p. 32; see also Shahinian v. … The Trial Court Properly Confirmed the Arbitration Award Because None of the Grounds Under Section 1286.2 Were Established.