Case law

People v. Ewing

244 Cal. App. 4th 359 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 27, 2016

Reversal for insufficient evidence is warranted 13 only where it clearly appears that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient evidence to support a conviction. … California law permits a person with “special knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education” in a particular field to qualify as an expert witness (Evid.

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.

People v. Madrid CA5

California Court of Appeal · Feb 23, 2015

At trial, Madrid presented the defense of limited immunity under the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 (§ 11362.5; CUA). (See People v. Mower (2002) 28 Cal.4th 457, 470 (Mower).) … Intent to sell a controlled substance may be established by circumstantial evidence. (People v. Harris (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 371, 374.)

Sisti v. Callahan CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · Mar 3, 2026

Accordingly, Callahan has not met her burden of establishing that the court erred in denying her request for an evidentiary hearing and expert testimony. B. … She contends that the court failed to consider psychological abuse (although this argument is not clearly presented, we presume she refers to alleged psychological abuse of daughter perpetrated by Sisti) and therefore the

People v. Smith CA4/2

California Court of Appeal · Apr 12, 2016

It found, “PC 664/VC 10851(A) does not qualify under Prop 47, PC 1170.18. Petition denied.” … He contends he qualified for reduction of his felony conviction to a misdemeanor violation of Penal Code section 490.2.

People v. Powell

181 Cal. App. 4th 304 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 25, 2010

Testifying under a grant of immunity, Lewis admitted that she falsely reported her car as stolen after her son called her in a panic. … (a)) requires the prosecution to prove four elements, including “[t]he defendant’s (illegal act/[or] failure to perform a legal duty) caused bodily injury to another person.” 3 The court misspoke, clearly intending to refer

Caltec AG v. Dept. of Pesticide Regulation

California Court of Appeal · Jan 2, 2019

The use of the conjunction “and” clearly establishes that the substance must satisfy two elements. … Instead, the Decision clearly states Kelpak is a liquid that concentrates the auxins contained in seaweed and was intended for use as a liquid auxin concentrate.

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.

Bisno v. Kahn

California Court of Appeal · May 27, 2014

Case law construing the usury law establishes that a party must clearly come “within the definitive edict of the constitutional provision of a ‘borrower’ ” to pursue a usury claim. (Barnes v. … The remedial provisions of the usury law do not clearly apply to forbearance fees received by judgment creditors.

Cal. Healthcare & Rehabilitation Center v. Baass

California Court of Appeal · Mar 10, 2025

For example, state agencies must adopt regulations following the procedures established in the Administrative Procedure Act. … The overpayment formula clearly implements the overpayment calculation laws the agency administers. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 22, § 51005, subd. (a)(2).)

Montgomery Ward & Co. v. County of Santa Clara

47 Cal. App. 4th 1122 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 26, 1996

The Legislature’s intent to “restore the statutory meaning of the terms used in the escape assessment provisions” clearly applied to the key term, *1136 “assessment year,” and the controlling date, “July 1.” … The Plaintiff corporation is an Illinois corporation which is qualified to do business, and is doing business, in the state of California. [*1 2.

All Points Traders, Inc. v. Barrington Associates

211 Cal. App. 3d 723 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 21, 1989

Barrington was to generate, screen and follow up on all leads, provide information about All Points to qualified buyers, prepare a corporate profile of All Points and assist in negotiations. … Such contracts are clearly distinguished from instruments issued to persons who, for a consideration paid, stipulate for a right to share in the profits or proceeds of a business enterprise to be conducted by others; and

Williams v. Lucas CA2/7

California Court of Appeal · Jan 19, 2024

In order for the bar . . . to be raised by demurrer, the defect must clearly and affirmatively appear on the face of the complaint.’”’”].) … (c); see Favila, supra, 188 Cal.App.4th at p. 209.)14 The allegations of the complaint are sufficient to establish the conspiracy claim is not barred by the agent’s immunity rule because Lucas (and Buchalter) had an

People v. Mateo

California Court of Appeal · Jan 13, 2016

Murtishaw, supra, 51 Cal.4th at p. 590.) 20 substantially as follows: [¶] Duly qualified experts may give their opinions on questions in controversy at a trial. … Jones clearly stated that she had not interviewed or evaluated anyone involved in the case, and that CSAAS was not intended to predict whether a child had suffered abuse.

Sheetz v. County of El Dorado

California Court of Appeal · Jul 29, 2025

[concluding that certain impact fees (a fee imposed by an administrative agency upon a specific development project on an individual and discretionary basis) qualify as land-use regulations subject to the heightened scrutiny … (See Dolan, supra, 512 U.S. at p. 387 [noting that the reduction of traffic congestion from a proposed development project qualifies as the type of legitimate public interest that has been upheld].)

City of Ontario v. Kelber

24 Cal. App. 3d 959 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 17, 1972

Section 813 of the Evidence Code provides as follows: “(a) The value of property may be shown only by the opinions of: “(1) Witnesses qualified to express such opinions; and “(2) The owner of the property or property interest … J., and Tamura, J., concurred. 1 Nothing herein contained shall be deemed to prohibit the introduction in evidence of the plan of the proposed development in a condemnation proceeding where its relevancy is established in

In Re Amy M.

232 Cal. App. 3d 849 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 23, 1991

We find it difficult to conceive what efforts could have been proferred to prevent or eliminate the necessity of removing the children from their home; Amy was clearly at risk of continuing abuse, and Michael was at risk … Evidence Code section 700 states: "[E]very person, irrespective of age, is qualified to be a witness...."

People v. Barajas

198 Cal. App. 4th 748 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 23, 2011

One way to improve it “would be to establish descriptive or mapped boundaries for that purpose.” (Victor, supra, 182 Cal.App.4th at p. 916 , fn. omitted.) … Indeed the federal constitutional right to travel asserted here has been variously attributed to the privileges and immunities clause and the . liberty protection of the Fourteenth Amendment. ( Tobe, supra, 9 Cal.4th at pp

Brooks v. CarMax Auto Superstores CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · Apr 1, 2016

She asserts she would not have purchased the Jeep had it not qualified as a "certified" vehicle, regardless of whether the Jeep was as mechanically sound as a Jeep that did qualify as a "certified" vehicle. … Kwikset noted standing requires that a party "(1) establish a loss or deprivation of money or property sufficient to qualify as injury in fact, i.e. economic injury, and (2) show that that economic injury was the result

People v. Higuera CA1/4

California Court of Appeal · Jun 30, 2022

Higuera argues that the evidence presented at trial did not establish this. … Whether competent proof supports a finding that Higuera and his codefendants killed the victim while they were active participants in an enterprise qualifying as a criminal street gang or whether they sought to further the