Case law

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.

People v. Cooks

141 Cal. App. 3d 224 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 25, 1983

The instruction clearly applied to the witnesses who were not accomplices. E. … He explained that he had denied any involvement in the Erakat murder because he had not been granted immunity, had been told he would not be granted immunity if he had killed anyone, and that he was afraid his parole would

People v. Mouser CA6

California Court of Appeal · Sep 30, 2015

(c)) that qualified as strikes (§ 667, subds. … First, ‘ “[t]he burden is on the party attacking the sentence to clearly show that the sentencing decision was irrational or arbitrary. [Citation.]

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).)

People v. Mateo

California Court of Appeal · Jan 15, 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.

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.

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.

People v. Martinez

230 Cal. App. 3d 197 · California Court of Appeal · May 16, 1991

magistrate’s understanding of Andrews , “if the crime would be murder in Texas, but if it was committed in California, the [California] statute would allow it to be . . . manslaughter, . . . that [Texas offense] would not qualify … Together with Sections 19.04 and 19.05 (manslaughter [voluntary and involuntary, respectively]), it clearly distinguishes between the unprovoked intentional or knowing killing, which has traditionally been treated as murder

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

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.

REA Enterprises v. California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission

52 Cal. App. 3d 596 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 30, 1975

The Coastal Act established the State Commission and six Regional Commissions, each comprised of twelve members (~ 27001, subd. (d), 27200, and 27201, subd. … A court will not depart from such construction unless it is clearly erroneous. 17 (Rivera v. City of Fresno, 6 Cal.3d 132, 148 [ 98 Cal.Rptr. 281 , 490 P.2d 793 ].)

People v. Selivanov

5 Cal. App. 5th 726 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 17, 2016

Pilyavskaya, who testified under a grant of immunity, testified that she did not do the books for defendants’ other business entities. … The People assert that “the trial court clearly adopted” the defense argument that “private non-profit charter schools were immune from the statute because the legislature had expressly failed to name them within section

Campbell v. Ford Motor Co.

206 Cal. App. 4th 15 · California Court of Appeal · May 21, 2012

To establish this claim, Plaintiff must prove all of the following: [f] 1. That Ford owned the property; [f] 2. … As we have also explained, however, in the absence of a statutory provision establishing an exception to the general rule of Civil Code section 1714, courts should create one only where ‘clearly supported by public policy

Young v. Municipal Court

16 Cal. App. 3d 766 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 19, 1971

(Both streets are busy suburban boulevards, lined with business establishments and shopping centers.) Automobile traffic was fairly heavy. Mr. … The fact that people assert First Amendment rights does not place them above the law and immunize them from obeying state laws, so long as such state laws are enforced fairly and without discrimination.

McCourtney v. Cory

123 Cal. App. 3d 431 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 2, 1981

A judge who qualified for retirement by reason of age and service became entitled to an allowance of 65 or 75 percent of the salary of his office (Gov. Code, § 75076). … In 1959 spousal allowances were established for surviving spouses of retired or disabled judges, which would continue until the death or remarriage of the survivor.

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

Salgo v. Leland Stanford Jr. University Board of Trustees

154 Cal. App. 2d 560 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 22, 1957

That such is not the law is established by Seneris v. … But it is prima facie proof of a proper method of use, given by the maker, which must be presumed qualified to give directions for its use and warnings of any danger inherent therein.