Case law

Morris v. JPMorgan Chase Bank

California Court of Appeal · May 5, 2022

There is no indication in the record 2 The first postponement, from September 15, 2015 to October 16, 2016, clearly took place as a result of a pending bankruptcy stay. (§ 2924g, subd. (e).) … Morris alleges that Chase “failed to promptly establish a single point of contact” for her account when she submitted her loan modification request.

Terry v. DAVIS COMMUNITY CHURCH

33 Cal. Rptr. 3d 145 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 18, 2005

The allegations are clearly wrong, since the report said nothing about any sexual relationship. … “Ordinarily, the common interest of the members of a church in church matters is sufficient to give rise to a qualified privilege to communications between members on subjects relating to the church’s interest.”

Benedetti v. County of Marin

California Court of Appeal · Aug 29, 2025

Thus, an ordinance restrictive of property use will be upheld, against due process attack, unless its provisions ‘are clearly arbitrary and unreasonable, having no substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals … But they cite nothing to suggest that a commercial lease of land for agriculture would qualify as a forced association for First Amendment purposes. 29  The Benedettis distinguish

Marriage of F.M. & M.M.

California Court of Appeal · Jun 3, 2021

Postfiling abusive conduct is clearly relevant in cases in which a TRO has been granted pending a hearing on a permanent restraining order. … Depriving a parent of access to his or her child certainly may qualify as abuse under this definition. 17  SANCHEZ, J.

International Billing Services, Inc. v. Emigh

101 Cal. Rptr. 2d 532 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 17, 2000

Later, after losing on the merits, IBS backpedaled and claimed the language of the contract did not provide for fees under section 1717, but only qualified as an indemnity provision. … Had appellant (the landlord) prevailed in this action, respondent clearly would have been liable for attorney fees ....

People v. Garcia

244 Cal. App. 4th 1349 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 22, 2016

Thus, in order to prevail on a motion to bifurcate a gang enhancement, a defendant must " 'clearly establish that there is a substantial danger of prejudice requiring that the charges be separately tried.' " (Ibid.) … "The crimes, if any, that establish a pattern of criminal gang activity, need not be gang-related.

People v. Gordon

165 Cal. App. 3d 839 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 18, 1985

It was established that this camping trip took place in July 1979. … The evidence was relevant only to defendant’s disposition to act and therefore clearly contrary to Evidence Code section 1101, subdivision (a).

People v. Garris CA6

California Court of Appeal · Apr 21, 2021

He also contends that the record establishes that he “suffers from serious mental health disorders.” … (b)(1)(A) [bipolar disorder and post- 7 traumatic stress disorder are qualifying mental disorders].)

Schumann v. Maxon CA4/3

California Court of Appeal · Jan 25, 2024

A communication that “preced[es] the filing of any suit” can qualify as conduct protected by the subdivision. (Bonni v. St. … The California Supreme Court has explained that the litigation privilege provides absolute immunity from all torts except malicious prosecution, “serves the important public policy of . . .

Old East Davis Neighborhood Assn. v. City of Davis

California Court of Appeal · Jan 12, 2022

He concluded that Trackside “clearly contributes to the goal of the Core Area Specific Plan,” and “the intent of the design guidelines.” … It did, however, find that Trackside was a Transit Priority Project, qualifying for SCEA review.

Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. Lisa M.

172 Cal. App. 4th 1481 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 13, 2009

Clearly, under this statute a court has broad discretion to evaluate not only the child’s physical safety but also his or her emotional well-being. … Without a showing that a parent’s personal rights are affected by a ruling, the parent does not establish standing. [Citation.]

Zakk v. Diesel

California Court of Appeal · Mar 25, 2019

original complaint on the ground that it only sought a declaration as to the parties’ rights and obligations with respect to the xXx sequel, the cause of action was amended to seek a declaration of rights with regard to any qualifying … Dougherty’s performance was clearly induced by Ochsner’s representation that he would sign the contract. This creates an estoppel”]; Tobola v.

ROMAN CATH. ARCHBISHOP OF LA v. Super. Ct.

32 Cal. Rptr. 3d 209 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 25, 2005

Commenting that "[c]ounsel clearly does not appreciate the scope of the Supreme Court's recent rulings concerning free exercise claims," the federal court held " Smith clearly does not apply only to cases where the law in … "The Establishment Clause provides that `Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . . .' [Citation.] In Lemon v.

In Re Basilio T.

4 Cal. App. 4th 155 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 4, 1992

*Page 166 Under modern California law, generally every person is qualified to be a witness, regardless of his or her age, provided he or she is competent to testify. (Evid. Code, § 700; Adamson v. … dependent child of the court on the ground that the minor is a person described by Section 300 , the court may limit the control to be exercised over the dependent child by any parent or guardian and shall by its order clearly

People v. Sassounian

182 Cal. App. 3d 361 · California Court of Appeal · May 30, 1986

Based upon the record, it is impossible for this court so to conclude. *392 The intent of the defendant, to which this particular opinion testimony was most relevant, seems clearly established by the eyewitnesses who placed … Clearly, there was no contrary evidence worthy of the jury’s consideration.

People v. Gonzales CA5

California Court of Appeal · Mar 7, 2016

First, ‘“[t]he burden is on the party attacking the sentence to clearly show that the sentencing decision was irrational or arbitrary. [Citation.] … Gonzales’s argument is based on the assertion that his prior conviction should not be considered a serious or violent felony, and thus did not qualify as a prior-strike conviction. (§ 667, subds. (c) & (d).)

People v. Cabral CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · Nov 6, 2025

The prosecutor also argued, more generally, that Cabral’s statements were relevant to establishing the requirement that Cabral “willfully resisted, or obstructed, or delayed” a police officer.4 (Italics 3 For example … immunity.

Pena v. Dey

California Court of Appeal · Aug 30, 2019

The appellate court explained: “We agree with the trial court that because Pulizevich did not limit or qualify the term ‘written notice,’ she authorized revocation via any writing that unambiguously manifested her intent … The court explained: “We think that any writing which clearly manifests an intention of the trustor to revoke is a sufficient writing under this section. [Citation.] The complaint served this purpose.” (Ibid.)

People v. Pineda

253 Cal. App. 2d 443 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 11, 1967

In Ortiz the court clearly set forth its intention in ordering a limited reversal. … Defendant, if qualified, could also secure some comfort from the recent case of People v.

California Capitalism Associates v. Marston CA4/2

California Court of Appeal · Jun 13, 2024

A trial court abuses its discretion by awarding attorney fees “‘only where its action is clearly wrong and without reasonable basis.’” (Powell v. Tagami (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 219, 236-237.) … “It is well established that an attorney who accepts a reduced rate from a client is not precluded from seeking a reasonable hourly rate pursuant to the lodestar method.