Case law

Cooper v. County of Los Angeles CA2/2

California Court of Appeal · Feb 18, 2015

The allegations in plaintiff’s third amended complaint establish that there were no deputy probation officer positions for which he was qualified. … There are two essential elements of a claim under section 1983: (1) the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law; and (2) the conduct deprived the plaintiff of a right, privilege or immunity

Sweetwater Union School Dist. v. Gilbane Building Co.

California Court of Appeal · Feb 24, 2016

While the evidence may establish that some of the conduct may have been illegal, the evidence does not establish that all of the conduct at issue was illegal as a matter of law. … As a result, Paul for Council is not as similar to this case as Sweetwater suggests, and it is clearly not controlling.

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,

People v. Cervantes

California Court of Appeal · Apr 10, 2017

Clear intent, clearly expressed, is decisive. … Null (Iowa 2013) 836 N.W.2d 41, 71 (Null) [52.5 years is de facto life sentence even though evidence ―does not clearly establish that [the defendant‘s] prison term is beyond his life expectancy,‖ but rather may ―come within

Xu v. Huang CA2/1

California Court of Appeal · Dec 16, 2021

However, as discussed in FilmOn, and as we explain below, such an attenuated connection is not enough to establish protected activity. … Thus, the “contextual cues” clearly align with FilmOn. (FilmOn, supra, 7 Cal.5th at p. 148.)18 18 Citing Terry v.

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.”

Ultramar, Inc. v. South Coast Air Quality Management District

17 Cal. App. 4th 689 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 30, 1993

To qualify for certification, an agency’s regulatory program must be governed by regulations which, inter alia, require that no project will be approved if there are feasible alternatives or mitigation measures available … Abuse of discretion is established if the agency has not proceeded in a manner required by law or if the determination or decision is not supported by substantial evidence.” *702 AQMD asserts that neither Ultramar nor any

Central Heights Improvement Co. v. Memorial Parks, Inc.

40 Cal. App. 2d 591 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 14, 1940

Glouner, one of the respondents, an exclusive one hundred and twenty day option to purchase twenty acres of its land for the further sum of $38,000 to establish a memorial park thereon. … The evidence clearly supports such finding.

The People v. Manafov CA3

California Court of Appeal · Sep 27, 2013

We observe the video (Exhibit 1) clearly shows the driver wearing a white hat and a white or light colored shirt, just as Summers testified. … does not necessarily establish that he or she is an accomplice.”

People v. Cunningham CA4/3

California Court of Appeal · Jun 26, 2014

In Carmony, supra, 33 Cal.4th 367, the high court explained “‘the Three Strikes law . . . establishes a sentencing requirement to be applied in every case where the defendant has at least one qualifying strike, unless the … First, ‘“[t]he burden is on the party attacking the sentence to clearly show that the sentencing decision was irrational or arbitrary. [Citation.] . . .

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

McKenzie v. Liu CA2/4

California Court of Appeal · May 23, 2024

“A person is qualified to testify as an expert if he has special knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education sufficient to qualify him as an expert on the subject to which his testimony relates.” (Evid. … Such abuse of discretion will be found only where ‘“the evidence shows that a witness clearly lacks qualification as an expert.”’” (People v. Chavez (1985) 39 Cal.3d 823, 828.)

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. Wondafrash CA4/3

California Court of Appeal · Jul 22, 2025

Does fear qualify as emotional harm?” … Although the prosecutor’s assertions were clearly improper, they do not support a conclusion that Wondafrash was denied due process.2 The assertions were met by objections and clarifications.

Romo v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. CA2/3

California Court of Appeal · Jan 29, 2021

establish causation as a matter of law.” … This court may find error in the trial court’s admission of expert testimony “ ‘only if the witness “ ‘clearly lacks qualification as an expert.’ ” [Citation.]’ ” (People v.

Hott v. College of the Sequoias Community College District

3 Cal. App. 5th 84 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 6, 2016

The CBA requires each faculty member to be placed on the salary schedule at the class and step for which he or she is qualified. … Code, § 3543.5.)7 To ensure the implementation and enforcement of EERA, PERB was established with the enactment of the statute. (Gov. Code, § 3541.)

Absher v. AutoZone, Inc.

164 Cal. App. 4th 332 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 26, 2008

Even if, as plaintiff urges, the phrase “credit card transaction” is read in isolation, it does not clearly and unambiguously (see People v. … From plaintiff’s perspective, the placement of the commas indicates that the qualifying phrase “as a condition to accepting the credit card as payment” applies only to “require,” not to “request.”

People v. Collins CA6

California Court of Appeal · Oct 6, 2015

Put differently, “incriminating answers may be officially compelled, without violating the privilege, when the person to be examined receives immunity ‘coextensive with the scope of the privilege’--i.e., immunity against … Chavez was a civil action involving qualified immunity in which the issue was whether a police officer who allegedly compelled statements from the plaintiff could be held liable for violating the plaintiff’s civil rights.

T.W. v. Superior Court

203 Cal. App. 4th 30 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 31, 2012

(See, e.g., In re Maria R. (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 48, 68 [ 109 Cal.Rptr.3d 882 ] [risk of sexual abuse to a sibling not established when there is no evidence to show a perpetrator of sexual abuse on a female child is in fact … Lazben Financial Co. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 172, 184 [ 121 Cal.Rptr.2d 405 ] [the activities of one branch of government are not immune from oversight by another branch].)

People v. Medrano CA1/1

California Court of Appeal · Dec 29, 2025

“criminal conduct” was “escalating,” his past performance on probation was unsatisfactory, and while he requested help with substance abuse, he “had the opportunity on probation previously to seek out help,” which had “clearly … “To establish abuse, the defendant bears the burden” to show the court’s decision “was, under the circumstances, arbitrary, capricious, or exceeding the bounds of reason.” (Ibid.)