Case law

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

People v. Bolanos

California Court of Appeal · Jan 26, 2023

We conclude neither exclusion denies equal protection.8 “[A] denial of equal protection” is found “only if there is no rational relationship between a disparity in 8 We note, to qualify to youthful offender parole … Analysis “ ‘ “No principle of procedural due process is more clearly established than that notice of the specific charge, and a chance to be heard in a trial of the issues raised by that charge, if desired, are among

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.

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

Etcheson v. FCA US LLC

California Court of Appeal · Dec 27, 2018

FCA did not, however, establish with legal authority or otherwise what hours and rates would be considered reasonable for a case with a favorable result for the plaintiffs. … best judge of the value of professional services rendered in his [or her] court, and while his [or her] judgment is of course subject to review, it will not be disturbed unless the appellate court is convinced that it is clearly

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.] . . .

Stanwyck v. Horne

146 Cal. App. 3d 450 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 24, 1983

Our Supreme Court concluded that an action for malicious prosecution could be stated against the nonschool defendant Vial but not against the school defendants since they were immune from civil liability. … This result clearly would not be in the public interest or in the interest of the bar.

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. Spencer

51 Cal. App. 4th 1208 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 23, 1996

The only “state of mind” that this evidence tended to establish was defendant Spencer’s fear and apprehension of Jefferson. … Because the error here is the same in nature but clearly less egregious than in Humphrey , the Watson standard applies and renders the error harmless. 3 III. Sentencing A.

White v. Davis

133 Cal. Rptr. 2d 691 · California Court of Appeal · May 29, 2002

into these contentions is guided by the principle that “in interpreting modem constitutions, their provisions will be presumed to be self-executing and to be given effect without legislation, unless a contrary intention is clearly … Maine (1999) 527 U.S. 706, 754 [ 119 S.Ct. 2240, 2266 , 144 L.Ed.2d 636 ]), and that California has not waived this immunity (Baird v. Kessler (E.D.Cal. 2001) 172 F.Supp.2d 1305, 1312 ).

Gray & Jimenez v. Jewish Federation of Palm Springs

243 Cal. App. 4th 892 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 8, 2016

Gray’s tactics in filing amended accountings that continued to defy the court’s orders and to which Jewish Federation had to file objections certainly qualifies under section 17211, subdivision (b). … Further, no evidence established Jimenez was aware that Gray possessed records that would assist with the accounting.

Bromme v. Pavitt

5 Cal. App. 4th 1487 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 31, 1992

“Hence, of necessity, in determining the question courts and juries must rely upon the testimony of properly qualified physicians for such testimony as will in the minds of the jury establish the fact in issue to a reasonable … Such evidence must be clearly distinguished from conjecture, or that which merely establishes a possibility of future trouble.” (Ibid.)

People v. Ward

266 Cal. App. 2d 241 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 30, 1968

The petitioner argues, however, that a jury qualified under such standards must necessarily be biased as well with respect to a defendant’s guilt, and that his conviction must accordingly be reversed because of the denial … The photograph was clearly admissible for this purpose. (People v. Arguello (1967) 65 Cal.2d 768, 775-776 [ 56 Cal.Rptr. 274 , 423 P.2d 202 ]; People v.

People v. Miranda

199 Cal. App. 4th 1403 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 18, 2011

The reviewing court does not address whether it believes the evidence established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. … We have no reason to believe the jury would have attached any significance to the qualifier of “legal” to the word “consent.”

Gateway Bank, F.S.B. v. Metaxas

California Court of Appeal · Jun 25, 2021

The OTS clearly was concerned about this deal in which buyers had paid nearly full book value for troubled assets. … As such, the allegations of the Fourth Cause of Action (intentional breach of fiduciary duty) have been established regarding this November 25 to 27, 2009 payment to purchase Ideal loans.

Bee v. Smith

6 Cal. App. 3d 521 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 13, 1970

Although the majority opinion succinctly states the facts and the law, I feel it necessary to elaborate on both, even though there is some repetition, in order to clearly specify my reasons for dissenting. … These facts, when considered with the evidence that all of the estate owned by the parties emanated from Ulysses and the language of Ulysses' letter to Edna dated September 27, 1948, are evidence which clearly establish their

People v. Basuta

114 Cal. Rptr. 2d 285 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 7, 2002

We noted that great bodily injury is clearly defined as “ ‘a significant or substantial physical injury.’ ” (Id. at p. 658.) … “(i) ‘Prospective juror’ means a juror whose name appears on the master list. fl[] . . . ft[] “(k) ‘Qualified juror list’ means a list of qualified jurors. HD ...

People v. Ibanez

76 Cal. App. 4th 537 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 29, 1999

Here, there is clearly no new evidence, and the only contention is the legal contention of whether the law requires defendant to be advised of potential civil commitment proceedings under the SVPA. … Indeed, as the People argue, defendant may not even qualify as a sexually violent predator under the SVPA. 15 Although defendant, by virtue of his plea and admissions, may be automatically referred for an initial screening

San Diego County Water etc. v. Metropolitan Water Dist. etc.

California Court of Appeal · Jul 18, 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