Case law

Smith v. Selma Community Hospital

164 Cal. App. 4th 1478 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 21, 2008

Also, in certain circumstances, participants in a professional review are immune from liability for damages. (Id., § 11111(a).) … The judicial review committee’s statements clearly articulated its finding on the issue of fact identified by the statute and Bylaws.

People v. Bourland

247 Cal. App. 2d 76 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 8, 1966

Defendant replied: "I don't know of any alternative, your Honor." [1] The defendant was clearly entitled to counsel. … In the fall of 1964, about a month before the first sale by defendant, the officer established an acquaintance with one Mills and made purchases of narcotics from him.

Wallis v. Farmers Group, Inc.

220 Cal. App. 3d 718 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 18, 1990

shall not be granted upon the ground of . . . excessive . . . damages, unless after weighing the evidence the court is convinced from the entire record, including reasonable inferences therefrom, that the court or jury clearly … I have access to over 500 [Farmers automobile] policies from my wifes [sic] book of business that qualify or will qualify for Safeco. They were put in [a Farmers company] because they had no prior liability.

People v. Bourland

247 Cal. App. 2d 76 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 8, 1966

Defendant replied: “I don’t know of any alternative, your Honor. ” The defendant was clearly entitled to counsel. … In the fall of 1964, about a month before the first sale by defendant, the officer established an acquaintance with one Mills and made purchases of narcotics from him.

McCann v. Municipal Court

221 Cal. App. 3d 527 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 19, 1990

Misconstruing two cases and ignoring the applicable statute, contemnor concludes that “only an actual interruption will qualify as the basis for a contempt.” … Unexplained delay does not establish good cause for a continuance. (See People v. Courts (1985) 37 Cal.3d 784, 790-791 [ 210 Cal.Rptr. 193 , 693 P.2d 778 ].)

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.

People v. Read CA1/1

California Court of Appeal · Nov 24, 2014

“Officer Kern, who qualified as an expert in the identification and possession for sale of methamphetamine, testified . . . that the baggie found in the kitchen was possessed for sale. … “Diane Arena testified under immunity, that appellant . . . had been living with her for at least two years prior to his arrest. She inherited the house and the Smith and Wesson .38 revolver from her father.

SUNSET SKYRANCH PILOTS ASSN. v. County of Sacramento

164 Cal. App. 4th 671 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 2, 2008

"(e) Establishing only those regulations which are essential and clearly within the scope of the authority granted by the Legislature, in order that persons may engage in every phase of aeronautics with the least possible … such intention is made clearly to appear either by express declaration or by necessary implication.'

People v. Valenzuela

California Court of Appeal · Feb 3, 2016

But it does expressly, specifically and clearly address the application of the reduced punishment provisions to convicted felons who were sentenced or placed on probation prior to Proposition 47's effective date. … Additionally, having served a prior prison term for a felony conviction is the qualifying criterion for the enhancement that Valenzuela received under section 667.5, subdivision (b).8 As the Attorney General points out,

Pestana v. Bank of America CA1/1

California Court of Appeal · Jun 12, 2014

Here, in contrast, Pestana has not alleged Bank clearly and unambiguously promised to negotiate with him to modify his loan. … To satisfy this standing requirement, “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 that that economic injury was the

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.

Poniktera v. Seiler

181 Cal. App. 4th 121 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 21, 2010

As explained by the United States Supreme Court, the determination that the regulated conduct qualifies as protected speech “merely begins our inquiry. … ‘Such use of the streets and public places has, from ancient times, been a part of the privileges, immunities, rights, and liberties of citizens.’ [Citation.]” (Id. at pp. 196-197, fn. omitted.)

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.

Eddins v. Redstone

35 Cal. Rptr. 3d 863 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 22, 2005

That is, defendants acted implausibly, in the absence of an agreement. 20 City of Tuscaloosa clearly so states. … The court, however, clearly stated the “advertising allowances” in question were “special benefits.”

Gault v. Modern Continental/Roadway Construction Co. Joint Venture

123 Cal. Rptr. 2d 85 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 10, 2002

A cause of action has no merit if “[o]ne or more of [its] elements . . . cannot be separately established . . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (n)(l).) … The Chandris court stated an “appropriate rule of thumb” for temporal substantiality: “A worker who spends less than about 30 percent of his time in the service of a vessel in navigation should not qualify as a seaman under

People v. Smith

California Court of Appeal · Jun 29, 2016

Mitchell clearly provided testimony that tended to exonerate Smith (as we further address in part III.A.1.b.). The People's legal analysis is also incorrect. … They were clearly not made during an interrogation, and there is not a single circumstance that would lead one to conclude that the conversations occurred to establish past events for the purpose of a future criminal prosecution

People v. Perry CA3

California Court of Appeal · May 14, 2021

In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found true an allegation that defendant had a prior conviction that qualified as a strike under the three strikes law. … First, ‘ “[t]he burden is on the party attacking the sentence to clearly show that the sentencing decision was irrational or arbitrary. [Citation.]

Joshua Tree Downtown Bus. Alliance v. Co. of San Bernardino

California Court of Appeal · Jul 13, 2016

Testimony by members of the public on such issues does not qualify as substantial evidence. [Citations.]” (Id. at p. 6-47.) … Thus, she was not qualified to opine on whether the Project would cause urban decay. In addition, she did not offer any particular factual basis for her opinions.

Brewer Corp. v. Point Center Financial

California Court of Appeal · Feb 28, 2014

This evidence establishes that the loan was for the purpose of financing the construction of improvements on the property. … Dynalectric qualifies as a person having a direct contract with the owner; thus, it was required to give notice to the lender under section 3097(b) unless it qualified as "the contractor."