Case law

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.

Tamas v. Safeway

California Court of Appeal · Mar 17, 2015

The objections also maintain that a definition of the phrase ‘other milk-derived ingredients’ should be established at a hearing.” (Ibid.) … Tamas’ Policy Argument Fails Finally, Tamas claims there are good policy reasons for prohibiting the use of MPC in yogurt, including that there is no formal definition or SOI for what qualifies as MPC.

Great West Contractors, Inc. v. Irvine Unified School District

187 Cal. App. 4th 1425 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 31, 2010

On May 1, the District sent Great West a letter saying Great West was indeed qualified to bid on the two projects. B. … Each notice said “time is of the essence,” and the “official start date of the project is therefore established as June 3, 2008.”

Union of American Physicians v. Brown

195 Cal. App. 4th 691 · California Court of Appeal · May 16, 2011

“First, the legislative history of the provision in question clearly and explicitly establishes that the reductions in appropriations for employee compensation that were included in the bill reflected the two-day-a-month … There, the New York State Legislature enacted a bill to add licensed psychiatrists to the list of providers who were qualified to receive reimbursement of Medicare coinsurance amounts. (Id., 898 N.Y.S.2d at p. 155 .)

A. R. Industries, Inc. v. Superior Court

268 Cal. App. 2d 328 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 19, 1968

Industries was not qualified to transact business in California; Industries owned no property here. It had no California offices or representatives. It advertised, however, in national advertising media. … Co. (1957) 355 U.S. 220 222-223 [ 2 L.Ed.2d 223 . 226, 78 S.Ct. 199 ], it is said: “Looking back over this long history of litigation a trend is clearly discernible toward expanding the permissible scope of state jurisdiction

Hasso v. Hapke

California Court of Appeal · Jul 15, 2014

The foregoing evidence does not establish the amount of investor assets transferred back to CFI on unwinding. … between CFI and Fish to establish alter ego liability.

People v. Rivas

14 Cal. Rptr. 3d 611 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 16, 2004

(e),” the Legislature clearly intended the sentence to be mandatory even though subdivision (f) did not contain an express reference to section 1385. (Espino at p. 96 .) … Murphy (2001) 25 Cal.4th 136, 157 [ 105 Cal.Rptr.2d 387 , 19 P.3d 1129 ]) established that the same prior conviction may be used for sentencing under both the One Strike law and the Three Strikes law.

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.

People v. Cole

67 Cal. Rptr. 3d 526 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 26, 2007

Background and Timeline In the 1990’s, Eric Scott Schoeller, a paralegal and document preparer, helped elderly clients establish living trusts. … If that were the case, there would be no protection for investors whose investments predated the legal determination by effectively giving nonlicensed broker-dealers immunity for their illegal conduct (selling securities

People v. Codinha

California Court of Appeal · Jun 26, 2023

(a)), which qualified as strikes under the Three Strikes law (§§ 667, subds. … In doing so, the court clearly exercised what it erroneously believed was its discretion to impose a concurrent term rather than a consecutive one.

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.

Moran v. Prime Healthcare Management CA4/3

3 Cal. App. 5th 1131 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 14, 2016

To forestall an action under the unfair competition law, another provision must actually ‘bar’ the action or clearly permit the conduct. … “To satisfy the narrower standing requirements imposed by [the enactment of Business and Professions Code section 17204], a party must now (1) establish a loss or deprivation of money or property sufficient to qualify as

O'CONNELL v. Superior Court

47 Cal. Rptr. 3d 147 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 11, 2006

The discretion belongs to [the legislative branch], *1467 unless the choice is clearly wrong, a display of arbitrary power, not an exercise of judgment.” ... … Therefore, Anderson, like the due process cases cited, is clearly inapposite. 18 Plaintiffs’ reliance on Griggs v.

Hastings College Conservation Com. v. State of Cal.

California Court of Appeal · Oct 15, 2025

Assembly Bill 1936 does not qualify as a bill of attainder under any of these tests. 14  1. … Contrary to plaintiffs’ argument, the amendment quite clearly affected a significant change in the statute: “[B]y deleting that portion of article IX, section 9, that required the organization and government of the university

People v. Sotelo

18 Cal. App. 3d 9 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 9, 1971

The search was clearly incident to Esther’s arrest, hence was “not unreasonable” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment if the arrest was lawful. 1 (People v. … Finally, Vito contends that the record contains no substantive' evidence to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Rea v. Blue Shield of California

California Court of Appeal · Jul 9, 2014

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California held that her claims were barred by sovereign immunity and the Parity Act was expressly preempted by the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act (5 U.S.C … However, DMHC rejected this provision, not because it disagreed with Blue Shield, but because DMHC 12 viewed the regulation as already clearly stating what Blue Shield was

Fernandez v. Lawson

119 Cal. Rptr. 2d 767 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 14, 2002

We must determine whether the moving defendant has met its burden to disprove at least one essential element of the plaintiffs cause of action or shown an element of the cause of action cannot be established. ( Sanchez v. … This evidence is clearly germane to the issue of whether Fernandez should be estopped from claiming he was Lawson's employee under section 2750.5.

Lee v. Yang

3 Cal. Rptr. 3d 819 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 19, 2003

(b)(2)); (3) fiduciary or trust accounts “where the relationship is established other than by deposit agreement” (id. at subd. … the extent of the amount drawn without any obligation to account for a part of the proceeds to A” [ 26 C.F.R. § 25.2511 -l(h)(4)]) directs the reader to applicable state law principles to determine whether the withdrawal qualifies

In Re Marriage of Nurie

176 Cal. App. 4th 478 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 7, 2009

Notifying Wife's attorney of record in open court clearly satisfied the statute. … Clearly, it has not. V.

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.