Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
0.34s
246 Cal. App. 4th 62 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 30, 2016
Finally, the court observed: "Clearly, California has taken the most aggressive approach toward punishing and deterring rape during the commission of a burglary. … Cudjo (1993) 6 Cal.4th 585, 616 ["Because there was no sound legal basis for objection, counsel's failure to object to the admission of the evidence cannot establish ineffective assistance"]; People v.
Cited 64 timesPublishedJackpot Harvesting Co. v. Superior Ct.
California Court of Appeal · Aug 14, 2018
But Lainez argued that the safe harbor provision of section 226.2(b) did not offer a complete defense to Jackpot because the statute did not immunize the company against unpaid minimum wage claims accruing prior to July 1 … As explained by our high court, “We may not, however, insert qualifying provisions not included or rewrite the statute to conform to an inferred intention that does not appear from its language. [Citations.]” (Mills v.
Cited 0 timesPublishedLos 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.]
Cited 1 timesPublished148 Cal. App. 3d 744 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 7, 1983
The next day, February 17, appellant reported he did not feel sufficiently “knowledgeable and qualified” to plead his own case and withdrew his Faretta motion. … A trial court should “establish!] a record based on such relevant considerations” to facilitate appellate review. (People v. Windham, supra, 19 Cal.3d 121, 128-129 .)
Cited 81 timesPublishedCalifornia Court of Appeal · Apr 4, 2025
Specifically, it states that the parties had stipulated that the community’s interest in “all retirement accounts” would be divided by a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). … The statement of decision clearly indicates the court’s spousal support award was based on 8 the section 4320 factors.
Cited 0 timesPublished14 Cal. App. 576 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 23, 1910
If the evidence offered conduce in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in controversy, it should go to the jury.” … He had qualified as a juror, and taken an oath to try the case according to the evidence, and if he afterward stated that he could not do so his statement would be of little value. 8.
Overruled by People v. Billa, 6 Cal. Rptr. 3d 425 (2003)Cited 65 timesPublished243 Cal. App. 4th 1140 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 14, 2016
To establish a due process violation, the record must clearly identify the support person, where she sat, and how she behaved during the witness’s testimony. (Myles, supra, 53 Cal.4th at pp. 1214–1215.) … Palmer (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 440, 443 [noting § 288.5 was not a qualifying offense in 2001].)
Superseded by statute, as recognized in People v. BrooksCited 124 timesPublishedCalifornia 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
Cited 0 timesPublishedCalifornia Court of Appeal · Jan 9, 2026
“To establish a qualifying [dangerous] condition, the plaintiff must point to at least one ‘ “physical characteristic” ’ of the property.” (Cole v. Town of Los Gatos (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 749, 759 (Cole); Salas v. … As previously discussed, public entities are immune from general tort liability for injury except as provided by statute. (Miklosy v.
Cited 0 timesUnpublished168 Cal. App. 3d 104 · California Court of Appeal · May 13, 1985
Y's conduct in showing the drugs to X upon exiting the house along with his statement that he had just purchased them inside the house also qualifies as a declaration against penal interest. ( United States v. … As Y clearly is neither a citizen informant nor a tested police informer, his/her information is inherently suspect.
Cited 11 timesPublishedDelta Stewardship Council Cases
California Court of Appeal · May 12, 2020
In our view, WR P1 clearly falls within the scope of the regulatory authority delegated to the Council under the Delta Reform Act. … The Council has not convinced us that the court was clearly wrong.
Cited 0 timesPublishedCalifornia Court of Appeal · Feb 28, 2022
He testified at trial under a grant of use immunity and provided background information on Cullen’s extortion. … DISCUSSION Appellant originally contended the Mexican Mafia is not a “criminal street gang” within the meaning of section 186.22, subdivision (b), and even if it currently qualifies as such a gang, it did not qualify
Cited 0 timesUnpublished177 Cal. App. 3d 1108 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 25, 1986
Indeed, the United States Supreme Court has held that a plaintiff need not obtain an adversary judgment in order to qualify as “prevailing.” (See id.; Maher v. … However, there the court clearly stated: “Plaintiff has obtained the relief sought and, therefore, is undoubtedly the prevailing party.” (Id., at p. 1196.)
Cited 8 timesPublishedDelta Stewardship Council Cases
California Court of Appeal · Jun 8, 2020
In our view, WR P1 clearly falls within the scope of the regulatory authority delegated to the Council under the Delta Reform Act. … The Council has not convinced us that the court was clearly wrong.
Cited 0 timesPublishedCalifornia Court of Appeal · Oct 18, 2019
Section 909 states: “Before accepting a person drawn as a grand juror, the court shall be satisfied that such person is duly qualified to act as such juror. … Those actions clearly violated section 939.5. (Avitia, supra, 6 Cal.5th 486, 488, 492.)
Cited 0 timesPublishedCalifornia 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.)
Cited 0 timesPublishedCalifornia Court of Appeal · Jul 10, 2015
Therefore, apart from the booking admissions, the evidence clearly established appellants’ active participation with the Country Boy Crips, which was more than passive or nominal.20 Thus, there was substantial evidence to … Finally, because this record lacks a showing of any actual or implied promise made to any of the appellants, they cannot establish the granting of immunity. C. Appellants cannot establish prejudice.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedCalifornia Court of Appeal · Feb 5, 2024
Counsel asked the court to find defendant outside the spirit of the Three Strikes law, noting his current offenses “were clearly the result of a mental illness.” … In Banner, the Court of Appeal recognized that “psychological trauma based on mental illness may be a circumstance qualifying for the lower term,” but emphasized, “we do not hold mental illness alone qualifies for the lower
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedCalifornia Court of Appeal · Jun 29, 2015
Farnam (2002) 28 Cal.4th 107, 162 [defendant forfeited claim that expert was not qualified to testify on one topic where his objection was to expert’s qualification on a different topic].) … “‘Error regarding a witness’s qualifications as an expert will be found only if the evidence shows that the witness “‘“clearly lacks qualification as an expert.”’”’ [Citations.]” (People v.
Cited 0 timesPublished5 Cal. Rptr. 3d 350 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 9, 2003
The trial court amplified its conclusion regarding who qualifies as an applicant as follows: “The court does not expand this construction to other persons in the home who are not recipients of aid. … At bottom, whether a party has failed to establish eligibility or refused to establish eligibility, that party has not established eligibility and, hence, cannot be given aid: The Department may not grant aid until a party
Cited 11 timesPublished
Ask Donna