Case law

Kruse v. Bank of America

202 Cal. App. 3d 38 · California Court of Appeal · May 18, 1988

Quite clearly, there is no competent evidence of the essential ingredients of a binding agreement to make a long-term loan secured by the ranch itself. … Jewell urging liquidation proceedings and to Dan O’Connell and *68 his sister pointing out the need to sell the O’Connell properties. 20 While Bunch’s heartless and insensitive remarks merit opprobrium, they do not qualify

Hasso v. Hasso

55 Cal. Rptr. 3d 667 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 6, 2007

There are two statutorily defined methods of establishing partial liquidation under section 16350, subdivision (c)(3). … In 1993, Norman established the Norman E. Hasso 1993 Trust, of which he was the sole trustee.

Flannery v. California Highway Patrol

61 Cal. App. 4th 629 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 11, 1998

When it turned to the amount of the award, the Serrano III court reiterated the well-settled principles-that the trial court is best qualified to assess the value of services rendered before it and that the question on appeal … Unless and until our Supreme Court decides to revisit or reexamine its Serrano III directives concerning the calculation of reasonable fees or the Legislature clearly expresses its disapproval of those directives, we consider

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.

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.

George Arakelian Farms, Inc. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Board

111 Cal. App. 3d 258 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 21, 1980

The Board’s findings are entitled to respect; but they must nonetheless be set aside when the record before a Court of Appeals clearly precludes the Board’s decision from being justified by a fair estimate of the worth of … Audio Industries, Inc. (7th Cir. 1963) 313 F.2d 858, 861 ) and the mere fact an employee is or was participating in union activities does not insulate him from discharge for misconduct or give him immunity from ordinary employment

Applera Corp. v. MP BIOMEDICALS, LLC

173 Cal. App. 4th 769 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 30, 2009

Thus, the prevailing party’s entitlement to attorney fees under Swiss law is qualitatively no different than the insertion of a reciprocal, prevailing-party attorney fees clause in a contract, which is clearly enforceable … qualified by the responding party, [ft] (2) Deny so much of the matter involved in the request as is untrue, [ft] (3) Specify so much of the matter involved in the request as to the truth of which the responding party lacks

People v. Bambino CA3

California Court of Appeal · Sep 7, 2016

So clearly that is less than $950.” … It found that the factual basis for the plea established that defendant intended to commit “ ‘any felony,’ which is clearly not within the provisions of Penal Code [section] 459.5.”

People v. Nemwan

238 Cal. App. 4th 103 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 26, 2015

Zamudio (2008) 43 Cal.4th 327, 357–358), the evidence established the following: The Dragon Garden is a fast food restaurant in Lancaster. … In returning the verdict form, the jury clearly manifested its intention to find true the allegation charged.

Butte County Department of Employment & Social Services v. Jason H.

230 Cal. App. 4th 807 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 16, 2014

problems that led to the removal of the half siblings (unsafe and unhealthy conditions) were different from those presented in this case (alcohol abuse, anger management problems and domestic violence); nor does the record establish … “We do not read the ‘reasonable effort’ language in the bypass provisions to mean that any effort by a parent, even if clearly genuine, to address the problems leading to removal will constitute a reasonable effort and as

Wechsler v. Superior Court

224 Cal. App. 4th 384 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 4, 2014

The California Supreme Court has cautioned that a party raising the issue has a heavy burden and must " 'clearly' " establish the appearance of bias. (Haworth, supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 389; see Mt. … A marriage must be solemnized to be valid, and the Legislature has designated certain individuals who are qualified to perform this function, including religious figures, current and retired judicial officers, and legislators

POET v. Air Resources Bd.

California Court of Appeal · Aug 8, 2013

Plaintiffs‟ lawsuit clearly qualifies as an “action or proceeding.” … The statute‟s use of the word “any” is not qualified and, thus, provides no basis for concluding section 21168.5 does not apply to plaintiffs‟ CEQA claims.

Solorio v. City of Fresno CA5

California 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.

People v. Reyes

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.

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.

People v. Medina

California Court of Appeal · Mar 17, 2016

Where the statutory requirements for joinder are clearly met, defendant must make a clear showing of prejudice to establish error. (Williams v. Superior Court (1984) 36 Cal.3d 441, 447.) … “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.]

Baek v. Continental Casualty Co.

California Court of Appeal · Oct 6, 2014

And, because the acts charged against him were outside the scope of his employment, he does not qualify as an insured under his employer’s liability policy.” Baek opposed the demurrer. … In order to establish a duty to defend, an insured need only establish the existence of a potential for coverage; while to avoid the duty, the insurer must establish the absence of any such potential. [Citation.]’

People v. Kim

59 Cal. Rptr. 3d 255 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 25, 2007

The objective, undisputed facts of this case establish the contrary. … Accordingly, defendant cannot establish ineffective assistance of counsel.

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.

Barnes v. Superior Court

117 Cal. Rptr. 2d 621 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 28, 2002

Such an interpretation clearly violates the Legislature’s intent in enacting section 1538.5, subdivisions (j) and (p). … Indeed, as [one case] observe[d], at the time [Penal Code] section 1538.5, subdivision (d), was drafted, a magistrate was not required to be a member of the [state] bar to qualify for that position, and his rulings were subject