Case law

Martinez v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust CA4/2

California Court of Appeal · Dec 15, 2021

We disregard any argument that is not clearly identified in a heading. (Opdyk v. California Horse Racing Bd., supra, at p. 1830, fn. 4.) … To have standing to assert a UCL claim, the plaintiff must “(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 the economic injury

People v. Lee

234 Cal. App. 3d 1214 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 30, 1991

The second degree felony-murder rule eliminates the need for the prosecution to establish the mental component. … “While painful and debilitating, such bone fractures clearly do not, by their nature, jeopardize the life of the victim.” (35 Cal.3d at p. 831.)

Goodwin v. Pagano CA2/3

California Court of Appeal · Dec 29, 2015

It granted Cannon’s and Oh’s motions to strike because Cannon’s advice to his client, in the midst of a deposition, qualified as a right arising from Oh’s right to petition or free speech, and Goodwin could not establish … Thus, ‘communications with “some relation” to judicial proceedings’ are ‘absolutely immune from tort liability’ by the litigation privilege [citation].

Ikeoka v. U.S. Bank, N.A. CA6

California Court of Appeal · Sep 29, 2015

The elements of a cause of action for slander of title are well established. … To bring a private action under Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq. a party must “(1) establish a loss or deprivation of money or property sufficient to qualify as injury in fact, i.e., economic injury, and

Fleming v. Ray-Suzuki, Inc.

225 Cal. App. 3d 574 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 21, 1990

“Modular’s production and marketing campaign established that it was ‘doing business’ on a nationwide scale .... … However the term “all” in subdivision (c) is unqualified, and the term “all” in subdivision (b) is qualified by “substantially all.” Accordingly, the cases are not comparable.

Rhee v. El Camino Hospital District

201 Cal. App. 3d 477 · California Court of Appeal · May 20, 1988

Consequently, it cannot be said that a violation of a hospital’s bylaws establishes a denial of due process in every case. (Tiholiz v. … The initial notice of formal charges before JRC I clearly informed Dr. Rhee that, in the opinion of the medical staff, he had “fail[ed] to perform sufficient cases to remain skillful . . . .”

Kalmus v. Kalmus

103 Cal. App. 2d 405 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 12, 1951

Kozol, a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Medical School, and a qualified psychiatrist, who averred that he had examined the abstract of the record of Baker Memorial Division of the Massachusetts General Hospital referring … Because the granting and refusing of alimony in actions for divorce is a matter which lies largely in the discretion of the trial court, an appellate tribunal will not interfere unless it be made clearly and affirmatively

Nunez-Dosangos v. Super. Ct.

California Court of Appeal · Dec 10, 2024

On September 13, 2024, we issued an order to show cause and established a schedule for the return and traverse. … The record in this case indicates the evidence taken at the preliminary hearing failed to establish probable cause for the murder charge against petitioner.

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.

LDI Growth Partners v. JPMorgan Chase Bank CA1/5

California Court of Appeal · Nov 5, 2013

(a)) and “[a]dmit so much of the matter involved in the request as is true, either as expressed in the request itself or as reasonably and clearly qualified by the responding party” (subd. … Clearly, the Agreement uses “received” in its ordinary meaning as coming into possession of a payment, with no implication of a right or intent to retain the payment.

Sternberg v. California State Board of Pharmacy

239 Cal. App. 4th 1159 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 26, 2015

(a)), the Board’s interpretation of section 4081 is entitled to deference unless it is clearly erroneous. (San Mateo City School Dist. v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (1983) 33 Cal.3d 850, 856.) … Medical Board (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 1834, 1845 (Khan) [“The Legislature’s failure to include ‘knowingly’ or ‘intentionally’ or other qualifying words signals that it did not intend either guilty knowledge or intent to be

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.)

In re G.B. CA4/3

California Court of Appeal · May 24, 2013

On appeal, we will reverse a trial court‟s ruling on such a foundational question only if the court clearly abused its discretion.” (People v. Hovarter (2008) 44 Cal.4th 983, 1011.) … To establish minor‟s truancy, the prosecutor cited his El Camino High School attendance record.

City of Buenaventura v. United Water etc.

California Court of Appeal · Apr 15, 2015

Crucially, Proposition 13 restricted cities, counties, and special districts from imposing "special taxes" except by a two-thirds vote of the district's qualified electors. (Cal. Const., art. XIII A, § 4.) … A finding that such a fee is not imposed as an incident of property ownership might be further supported by a clearly established regulatory purpose, e.g., to internalize the costs of the burdened activity or to conserve

People v. Pryor CA5

California Court of Appeal · Oct 27, 2025

Under the Three Strikes law, not all juvenile adjudications qualify as strikes. … This evidence confirmed at least one of the prior juvenile adjudications did qualify as a strike.

Lopez v. Ledesma

California Court of Appeal · Mar 24, 2020

First, the court concluded that the DSA’s established a contractual agency relationship. … Clearly, a physician assistant is not permitted to practice without supervision.

People v. BONNETTA

68 Cal. Rptr. 3d 161 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 15, 2007

Attaching talismanic importance to one form of writing over another would, in the circumstances here, seem to qualify as "an arid ritual of meaningless form." 8 ( Staub v. … (a)(10)), appeal from orders striking the enhancements and/or reducing the punishment is clearly proper. ( Id. , subd. (a)(1), (6); People v.

Connor v. First Student, Inc.

California Court of Appeal · Aug 13, 2015

First also admits that those background checks were used to confirm that Connor and the other employees “are properly qualified to safely perform their job duties.” 7  There … the Court should not give effect to two patent laws, each with different requirements and protections, that protect the same thing, “‘when two statutes are capable of coexistence, it is the duty of the courts, absent a clearly

People v. Moreno CA5

California Court of Appeal · Oct 29, 2014

The court noted documents from appellant’s 2008 conviction were available and were consulted and they established that appellant was convicted of section 246, a strike. … Moss stated that appellant was clearly convicted of violating section 246 according to the court record from 2008. Appellant offered nothing further and the trial court denied the Marsden motion.

People v. Watts

173 Cal. App. 4th 621 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 29, 2009

Kolkey noted that defendant wanted his constant presence seven days a week, and wanted his focus to be on defendant’s civil legal problems; while defendant communicated clearly and logically for short periods of time, it … was difficult to keep him focused on his criminal case. 8 After Judge Raster found that defendant had failed to establish any inadequacies on the part of Kolkey and rejected defendant’s assertion of a conflict of interest