Case law

Jaramillo v. State Board for Geologists & Geophysicists

39 Cal. Rptr. 3d 170 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 12, 2006

licensure because the only charge he faced was the unlicensed practice of geophysics, and the Board’s proof was based entirely on the testimony of Sawyer, who was not licensed in the field of geophysics and thus was not qualified … Sweeney also testified that he and his enforcement manager, who is a registered geologist, and a technical expert who was a licensed geophysicist, came to the opinion that the contract showed Jaramillo was clearly offering

St. Cyr v. California FAIR Plan Ass'n

223 Cal. App. 4th 786 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 31, 2014

Appellants further contended that respondent failed to establish that the Department ever approved its policy forms. … The standard form set forth in section 2071 and the written provisions in the exemplar FAIR Plan policy form clearly provide there is a single overarching policy limit.

People v. Rodriguez CA3

California Court of Appeal · Oct 23, 2014

“Furthermore, I simply said that entry into a functionally connected structure may qualify as a first-degree burglary. I certainly didn’t say that it would qualify as a first- degree burglary. … Clearly, that’s not the situation that we have here.

People v. James CA3

California Court of Appeal · Jul 16, 2025

Regarding the gun used in the incident, D.K. testified that it “pretty clearly[] seemed to be a semiautomatic” handgun, given its “squarish” shape and lack of a cylinder. … Rodriguez (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1 at page 11, footnote 3 for the proposition that assault is not established just because a weapon “could be used as a bludgeon.”

Chodos v. Cole

210 Cal. App. 4th 692 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 25, 2012

This is vastly different from a third party suing an attorney for petitioning activity, which clearly could have a chilling effect.” (Id. at pp. 1539-1540, citation omitted.) Other cases come to the same conclusion. … Although this statutory language has been interpreted broadly to protect qualifying statements made or conduct undertaken by a person on another person’s behalf against a cause of action by a third person . . . , it is unreasonable

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.

People v. Snyder

112 Cal. App. 4th 1200 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 27, 2003

Jason Hart, testifying under a grant of immunity, stated that he was a neighbor and friend of Perez. Hart testified that Perez’s nickname was “Rockhead.” … In any event, any omission was clearly not prejudicial. The trial court informed the jury that all accomplice testimony must be viewed with caution *1225 and independently corroborated.

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

In Re Peterson

67 Cal. Rptr. 3d 584 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 31, 2007

First, the drafters' Comment to Uniform Rule 63(20) contains no hint that a judgment on appeal would not qualify for admission. … These assumptions are clearly sound when the criminal charge as a felony." (6 Cal. Law. Rev. Com. Rept, supra, p. 540.)

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.

Nguyen v. Ramirez CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · Jan 30, 2025

Moreover, Nguyen did not clearly identify what defendants allegedly said to these “other members of the community,” nor did she clearly identify to whom they made the statements. … “The malice necessary to defeat a qualified privilege is ‘actual malice’ which is established by a showing that the publication was motivated by hatred or ill will towards the plaintiff or by a showing that the defendant

Lagrisola v. North American Financial Corp.

California Court of Appeal · Nov 3, 2023

“To satisfy the narrower standing requirements imposed by Proposition 64, a party must now (1) establish a loss or deprivation of money or property sufficient to qualify as injury in fact, i.e., economic injury, and (2) show … Likewise, here, the Lagrisolas have not established an actionable omission.

Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. Coachella Valley Water Dist.

California Court of Appeal · Jan 31, 2025

The Water District construes Webb and Citizens for Fair REU Rates as holding that any “use” of rates is “immune from challenge.” However, such a construction sweeps far too broadly. … “To justify departing from a literal reading of a clearly worded statute, the results produced must be so unreasonable the Legislature could not have intended them.” (Ibid.)

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.

Fenning v. Glenfed, Inc.

40 Cal. App. 4th 1285 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 8, 1995

Congressional intent to preempt state law may be established in one of three ways. First, Congress may expressly state that the field is preempted. (California Federal S. & L. Assn. v. … There is no reason to suppose that Congress intended to preempt common law tort claims, effectively granting savings associations immunity from such state *1299 law claims, and a number of courts have so held.

People v. Robinson CA5

California Court of Appeal · Feb 20, 2024

In reaching its decision, the court explained that, “I have to look at the circumstances in light of the mental health issues that were clearly evident presented in the evidence at the trial and also in the probation report … The jury would have been able to clearly recognize that defendant’s newly developed mental health symptom was nothing more than a fabricated excuse to avoid criminal prosecution.

San Mateo County Department of Social Services v. Charles M.

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.

Perez v. Blay CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · Nov 18, 2020

Because the eight lots clearly qualify as separate interests, our analysis turns on whether the property includes a “common area” as defined by the statute. … In planned developments, a common area can be established in one of two ways.

People v. Chen

California Court of Appeal · Jun 28, 2019

Moreover, even if a court were to conclude counsel erred, Chen cannot prevail because she cannot establish prejudice. … Chen states she “has clearly been prejudiced by her lawyer’s misadvice and his failure to disclose the harsh, irreversible immigration consequences.”

Mosesian v. McClatchy Newspapers

205 Cal. App. 3d 597 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 26, 1988

Sullivan, supra, 376 U.S. at page 283 , footnote 23 [ 11 L.Ed.2d at p. 708 ], did not define the term; the plaintiff was an elected city commissioner, a position which “clearly made him a public official.” … They could have attempted to establish the “public figure” designation as an undisputed fact.