Case law

In re Patrick R. CA1/2

California Court of Appeal · Dec 20, 2013

As previously intimated, appellant has no response to one aspect of the juvenile court’s decision, namely: “That leaves us with the undisputed fact the gun was in the home, clearly was loaded, and clearly in a location . … Although the evidence does not qualify as overwhelming, it is adequate to sustain a finding that Patrick was at risk of serious emotional harm within the meaning of subdivision (c).

People v. Cadena CA5

California Court of Appeal · Oct 2, 2024

It was also alleged that he suffered a 2001 robbery conviction (§ 211) that qualified as a strike prior (§§ 667, subds. (b)–(i), 1170.12, subds. … agreements are not qualified to undo a plea bargain agreement that was actually stipulated to by the parties other than to remove invalid priors ….”

People v. Clay

153 Cal. App. 3d 433 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 22, 1984

Such a motive, if established, is clearly impermissible, even for challenges statutorily defined as those “for which no reason need be given.” 2 (People v. Wheeler, supra, 22 Cal.3d 258 .) … Clearly it is the trier of fact that must in most situations make the determination.

Young v. Midland Funding LLC

California Court of Appeal · May 3, 2023

Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, subdivision (b)(1) does not provide a form of immunity, “insulat[ing] defendants from any liability for claims arising from the protected rights of petition or speech.” … Thus, Young qualified as a “debtor” under the Rosenthal Act.

Food Pro International, Inc. v. Farmers Insurance Exchange

169 Cal. App. 4th 976 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 30, 2008

The piercing of the customer’s ears resulted in serious injury, and the court held that “in the context of a cosmetics business, ear piercing clearly constitutes a professional service as distinguished from an activity incidentally … These undisputed facts conclusively demonstrate that Pettigrew’s accident does not qualify as an ‘occurrence’ under the CGL policy.”

People v. Teodosio CA5

California Court of Appeal · Feb 9, 2015

Such civil commitments can be extended upon petition by the district attorney’s office, provided it can be established at the civil commitment trial that the patient still qualifies as an MDO. (Pen. … Though it is conceivable that the investigation into Ahart may have concerned matters of or relating to her professional honesty, the record clearly shows that the material from Ahart’s reports that was noted by Saini was

Perksy v. Bushey

California Court of Appeal · Mar 26, 2018

specifies the number of signatures necessary to qualify the recall petition for the ballot. … As currently phrased, article II, section 14, does not clearly classify trial court judges as state officers, but only identifies precisely what offices qualify for the 20-percent 18 Section 11324, subdivision

Billauer v. Escobar-Eck

California Court of Appeal · Feb 28, 2023

“Comparing its statements and conduct against the statute, it must demonstrate activity qualifying for protection. (See § 425.16, subd. (e).) … Clearly, such statements are defamatory. Indeed, Billauer does not even address the substance of the February 5 posts. Rather, the disagreement here is whether Billauer made the subject posts.

El Rovia Mobile Home Park, LLC v. City of El Monte

California Court of Appeal · Apr 23, 2020

The base rent year is clearly established. El Rovia LLC’s argument is that, as a matter of constitutional law, the City was required to establish 2015 as the base year. … Brabant was well qualified as an expert on mobilehome park rent control and performed extensive analysis to reach his conclusion.

Capeci v. City of Imperial CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · Mar 24, 2016

Clearly, Capeci's filing of his age discrimination complaint with DFEH on or about March 14, 2012, was not within one year of this alleged adverse employment action by City. (See § 12960, subd. (d).) … (d)(2), (1)), it neither requires a reassignment if there is no vacant position for which the employee is qualified (Cuiellette v.

Storck v. Edelstein CA4/2

California Court of Appeal · Sep 15, 2022

As a result, Edelstein is absolutely immune from any tort claim arising from the abstract of judgment other than malicious prosecution. (See ibid.) … Storck does not cite, nor can we locate, any other authority that suggests Edelstein’s litigation privilege immunity ended when the trial court vacated the default judgment.

People v. Harden

California Court of Appeal · Jul 12, 2022

Harden Cannot Establish a Prima Facie Case Because the Record of Conviction Conclusively Establishes She Was Convicted as the Actual Killer We begin with the jury instructions on murder, felony murder, special … CALJIC No. 8.80.1 as given clearly applied to felony murder because it instructed the jury regarding the situations in which it could find the felony murder special circumstance true. 9 Citing People v.

Estate of Hyde

92 Cal. App. 2d 6 · California Court of Appeal · May 23, 1949

Hyde Fellowship Fund," which she had established by five inter vivos transfers. It is the taxability of these transfers that is here involved. … then contained this paragraph, admittedly included on the advice of the university attorneys in order to avoid the Maryland law prohibiting the setting up of charitable trusts: "Nothing in this agreement shall limit or qualify

People v. Martin CA4/2

California Court of Appeal · Aug 16, 2023

Thus, the weight of authority 15 clearly holds that the mere fact that defendant’s sworn statement was given in the context of a parole hearing does not establish that the … statement was involuntary or subject to use immunity.

Lockheed Aircraft Corp. v. County of Los Angeles

207 Cal. App. 2d 119 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 24, 1962

This finding is supported by the evidence only in the qualified sense that records existed from which it was possible, by analysis and computation, to determine the dollar value of labor and materials which went into the … In the performance of his official duty, he determines what costs, if any, and what other factors, if any, shall be relied upon as establishing the value of particular property.

People v. Piggee CA2/2

California Court of Appeal · May 6, 2016

Counsel admitted defendant always had been “difficult” in court, but asserted defendant was “clearly delusional” and his behavior had worsened. … Prerequisites to Second Competency Hearing Not Established Defendant fails to establish the prerequisites for a second competency hearing.

California Arco Distributors, Inc. v. Atlantic Richfield Co.

158 Cal. App. 3d 349 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 17, 1984

However, a “mere conflict in words is not sufficient” to establish federal preemption. (Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo (1979) 439 U.S. 572, 581 [ 59 L.Ed.2d 1, 10-11 , 99 S.Ct. 802 ].) … Such a set of rules would clearly define the rights and obligations of the parties to the franchise relationship in the crucial area of termination of a franchise or non-renewal of the franchise relationship.” (1978 U.S.

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

Pelayo v. JJ Lee Management Co., Inc.

174 Cal. App. 4th 484 · California Court of Appeal · May 28, 2009

Darmanchyan’s averments were clearly relevant because they addressed a material disputed issue: what did that summons recite? … Darmanchyan qualified that averment with the phrase “to the best of my knowledge.” That phrase, however, does not “somehow magically nullify] whatever statement follows it.

People v. Valdez

58 Cal. App. 4th 494 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 15, 1997

An appellate court may not interfere with the exercise of that discretion unless it is clearly abused. [Citation.]” (People v. Page (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 161, 187 [ 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 898 ].) … Moreover, their common identification as Norteños did not establish them as a street gang, for, as Officer Piscitello testified, Norteño and Sureño are not the names of gangs.