Case law

People v. James

96 Cal. Rptr. 2d 823 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 30, 2000

Clearly, these instructions pose a greater danger of undermining the jury’s appreciation of the ultimate standard of proof than the Carpenter instructions. … This instructional error qualified as a “structural error” of the kind that defies analysis by harmless-error standards. (I d. at pp. 281-282 [113 S.Ct. at pp. 2082-2083].)

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.

Suojanen v. Strong CA4/3

California Court of Appeal · Mar 21, 2016

“‘[O]ne of the essential attributes of abuse of discretion is that it must clearly appear to effect injustice. [Citations.] … There is no requirement that a valid lien be filed to establish ownership of a judgment, or to obtain an offset.

Williams v. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft

180 Cal. App. 3d 1244 · California Court of Appeal · May 15, 1986

The record in this case shows that Williams’s experts were carefully qualified in order to provide foundations for the expert opinions which they were expected to give on direct examination. By way of illustration, Mr. … The record clearly shows this opinion to be based on his experience in the field of failure analysis not metallurgy, as VW charges.

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

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."

Brewer Corp. v. Point Center Financial

California Court of Appeal · Feb 27, 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."

Brown v. California Pension Administrators & Consultants, Inc.

45 Cal. App. 4th 333 · California Court of Appeal · May 8, 1996

“A defendant is entitled to summary judgment if the record establishes as a matter of law that none of the plaintiff’s asserted causes of action can prevail. [Citation.] … It is difficult to imagine language that would more clearly limit a contracting party’s duty to another. (See Metz v. Independent Trust Corp. (7th Cir. 1993) 994 F.2d 395, 397-398 .)

Brichetto v. Raney

76 Cal. App. 232 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 15, 1926

If there is nothing in the deed itself clearly indicating an assumption by the grantee of the debt secured by the mortgage, and there is no written agreement extrinsic to the deed to that effect, then proof by parol testimony … at the time the transfer to the Bank was suggested and made, as to the true relation to the property that it was intended that the Bank should sustain, should be sufficient to foreclose any right in the Bank now to claim immunity

San Diego Co. Water v. Metropolitan Water Dist.

California Court of Appeal · Jun 21, 2017

“[I]immunity from judicial review” would create “an incentive for local agencies to overvalue the estimated costs of services and then continually readopt that fee.” (Ibid.) … RMI found state charges for capital, operation and maintenance charges for project facilities to be “clearly transmission-related” and properly allocated to Metropolitan’s transmission or transportation costs.13 In

Citizens for Open Access to Sand and Tide, Inc. v. Seadrift Ass'n

60 Cal. App. 4th 1053 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 14, 1998

We think the intent of the parties to be bound by the settlement agreement is clearly manifested by provisions which conclusively resolved the administrative appeal before the CCC, the Kelly action and the federal court action … Although the judgments entered in the Kelly and federal court actions in accordance with the settlement agreement were rendered through consent and stipulation, they qualify as final and on the merits for purposes of the

Bassett Unified School Dist. v. Super. Ct.

California Court of Appeal · Mar 14, 2023

” ’ establish the appearance of bias.” … Mere speculation is insufficient to raise reasonable doubt as to the validity of the presumption that the trial judge was qualified and unbiased.” (Ibid.; see also Bailer v. Com.

Coast National Insurance Co. v. Klinefelter CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · Jan 7, 2025

[a] qualified acceptance is a new proposal.” (Civ. Code, § 1585.) … The most obvious inference is that the party denies liability but, at the very least, one clearly disputes liability. Accordingly, this response is not an unqualified acceptance of the offer.

State of Cal. Correctional Health etc. v. Public Employment Relations etc. CA1/5

California Court of Appeal · Sep 26, 2022

[Employer] clearly preferred to leave this critical position vacant rather than hire [Employee], who had been successfully performing the job, and who was deemed qualified for the permanent position. … “Once [a prima facie case] is established, then the burden shifts to the employer to establish an affirmative defense.

State of Cal. Correctional Health etc. v. Public Employment Relations etc. CA1/5

California Court of Appeal · Sep 27, 2022

[Employer] clearly preferred to leave this critical position vacant rather than hire [Employee], who had been successfully performing the job, and who was deemed qualified for the permanent position. … “Once [a prima facie case] is established, then the burden shifts to the employer to establish an affirmative defense.

People v. Brown CA1/2

California Court of Appeal · Dec 8, 2015

[I]t’s clearly involving the same parties, the same witnesses. … To demonstrate that a denial of severance was reversible error, defendant must ‘ “clearly establish that there [was] a substantial danger of prejudice requiring that the charges be separately tried.” ’ [Citation.]

ALVAKADO v. Superior Court

53 Cal. Rptr. 3d 416 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 16, 2007

Section 1203.06 currently states “ ‘used a firearm’ means to display a firearm in a menacing manner, to intentionally fire it, . . . or to use it in any manner that qualifies under Section 12022.5.” 14 This section defines … To hold otherwise would eliminate the distinction between ‘armed’ and ‘use,’ a distinction the Legislature clearly intended to make. . . ,” 22 The court in People v.

San Gabriel Tribune v. Superior Court

143 Cal. App. 3d 762 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 9, 1983

Gulick (D.C.Cir. 1969) 411 F.2d 696, 703 [7 A.L.R.Fed. 840], “holding that a memorandum which would qualify for the exemption lost its exempt status when the agency stated that the basis for its order requiring a payment … withholding any record by demonstrating that the record in question is exempt under express provisions of this chapter or that on the facts of the particular case the public interest served by not making the record public clearly

Olincy v. Merle Norman Cosmetics, Inc.

200 Cal. App. 2d 260 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 14, 1962

It will be observed that California restrictions proceed by way of imposing a minimum upon the number of stockholders or directors who are qualified to act, not a maximum. … Clearly this state sanctions a by-law which requires four as a quorum of a five-member board of directors.

Fair Education Santa Barbara v. Santa Barbara Unified etc.

California Court of Appeal · Dec 15, 2021

FESB also relies on Marshall, supra, 119 Cal.App.4th at p. 1256, which involved a construction contract that clearly fell within the scope of the competitive bidding statute. … The services provided here clearly satisfied these requirements. a.