Case law

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.

People v. Gordon

71 Cal. App. 2d 606 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 9, 1945

established. … The jury were clearly instructed to be governed by the evidence only.

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.

In re N.B. CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · Jan 4, 2024

She also specifically requested that the court “vacate all order(s) authorizing removal or otherwise terminating reunification, and resuming reunification for six (6) months, at minimum, with subsequent hearings to establish … The record clearly shows that at that later time, Y.J. was a former foster caregiver who had not cared for, or even visited, N.B. for more than three years and did not have any parental or other recognizable interest in N.B

Food Safety Net Services v. Eco Safe Systems USA, Inc.

209 Cal. App. 4th 1118 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 4, 2012

Only one test displayed the expected bacterial growth following inoculation, namely, the test in which Eco Safe’s equipment clearly surpassed other disinfection methods. … These facts also establish the propriety of the fee award under Civil Code section 1717.

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.

Prudential Home Mortg. Co. v. Superior Court of Orange Cty.

78 Cal. Rptr. 2d 566 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 29, 1998

Petitioners claim this is an action for a statutory penalty or forfeiture, which is clearly governed by Code of Civil Procedure section 340, subdivision (1). 1 We agree. … The same rationale has been adopted where defendant held itself out or was required by law to be specially qualified in a trade; [Citations.] fl[] Second, courts have relied on the nature of the relationship between defendant

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.

Pynoos v. Massman CA2/2

California Court of Appeal · Oct 16, 2014

The jury heard evidence on all four issues, and was specifically instructed on the Agreement’s immunity provision. … The 2002 letter did not satisfy these procedures; at most, it established the limited partners’ permission to sell the building. II.

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

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

Roden v. AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORP.

186 Cal. App. 4th 620 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 8, 2010

Roden, without citation to the record, says there is a conflict of interest because AmerisourceBergen both funds the SERF and has the authority to determine who qualifies for benefits. … In the matter before us, these portions of section 7.4 were clearly implemented in the manner specified.

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. Atwood

223 Cal. App. 2d 316 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 16, 1963

San Francisco Police Inspector Walter Ihle, assigned to the police crime laboratory and a qualified fingerprint analyst, arrived at the garage at about 9 a.m. on January 17. … In the case before us, defendant's palmprint established by the testimony to be no more than three to five days old was found on the safe on the morning of January 17, 1962.

Falcon Brands, Inc. v. Mousavi & Lee, LLP

California Court of Appeal · Jan 27, 2022

Counsel declares Mousavi made the statements in a telephone conversation with him which inferentially established personal knowledge. … If Mousavi had not crossed the line earlier, her October 11 e-mail clearly did.

In Re Katrina L.

200 Cal. App. 3d 1288 · California Court of Appeal · May 4, 1988

After respondent's attorney asked his first substantive question and the minor answered, appellant's counsel objected and asked whether there needed to be established "foundational argument first...." … The quoted statement of *1300 the juvenile court judge clearly indicates that he found the minor to be a reliable witness.

People v. Romo CA2/2

California Court of Appeal · Oct 21, 2013

The trial court properly found Officer Vaughan qualified to testify as an expert on chop shops. … that the officer qualified as an expert.

People v. Elder CA1/5

California Court of Appeal · Aug 8, 2014

The paragraph is prominently and clearly identified as relating “to COUNTS THREE AND FOUR.” … The plain meaning of the Act is that an inmate must meet the requirements of all subdivisions of section 1170.126(e) in order to qualify for resentencing. Elder does not.