Case law

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

People v. MacIoce

197 Cal. App. 3d 262 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 28, 1987

This does not mean that the members of such a group are immune from peremptory challenges; individual members thereof may still be struck on grounds of specific bias, as defined herein. … In the lead opinion Justice Mosk wrote that there are two requirements which must be met “in order to qualify an asserted group as ‘cognizable’ for purposes of the representative cross-section rule.

In re M.H. CA4/2

California Court of Appeal · May 9, 2025

Applicable Law "ICWA establishes minimum federal standards that a state court must follow before removing Indian children from their families. [Citation.] … We note that mother’s claim regarding her cousin A.V. also has merit since she clearly qualifies under the provision that specifies that the duty to inquire includes “others who have an interest in the child.” (§ 224.2

DVD Copy Control Ass'n Inc. v. Bunner

10 Cal. Rptr. 3d 185 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 27, 2004

The first element is the crucial one here: in order to qualify as a trade secret, the information “must be secret, and must not be of public knowledge or of a general knowledge in the trade or business.” … As the trial court clearly explained, the preliminary injunction prohibiting disclosure was intended to protect the trade secret.

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.]’

Autolino v. Thomas CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · May 22, 2025

“This was clearly in violation of the ‘no contact order,’ ” so she “immediately contacted Agent Galbraith.” Days later, “parole communicated that Mr. Thomas . . . … To qualify as a “course of conduct” within the meaning of section 527.6, activity must amount to “a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time . . . evidencing a continuity of purpose, including

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

Centinela Freeman v. Health Net

California Court of Appeal · Feb 19, 2014

and Reimbursement Therefor Under state and federal law, emergency services and care “shall be provided to any person requesting the services or care” at any hospital with appropriate facilities and qualified … This was insufficient, in the view of the CEP court, to establish that the HMO’s conduct was directed toward the plaintiff. (Ibid.)

People v. Ramirez

172 Cal. App. 4th 1018 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 30, 2009

The party seeking severance or bifurcation has the burden to "clearly establish that there is a substantial danger of prejudice requiring that the charges be separately tried." ( People v. … Code, § 352.) (5) Defendant complains the prosecutor did not qualify the expert's testimony as scientific evidence under People v. Kelly (1976) 17 Cal.3d 24 [ 130 Cal.Rptr. 144 , 549 P.2d 1240 ], Frye v.

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

People v. Sahagun

89 Cal. App. 3d 1 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 30, 1979

Even were it otherwise, the court could consider only competent evidence, and the transcript of the testimony at the hearing on the 1977 motion to suppress was hearsay, inadmissible unless qualified under Evidence Code section … On the record before us the trial court’s determination that the prejudice to the defendants from the prosecutorial delay outweighed the prosecution’s justification therefor was clearly erroneous.

Peart v. Ferro

13 Cal. Rptr. 3d 885 · California Court of Appeal · May 28, 2004

The decision in Whelihan is clearly on point with the case before us. … The Legislature was clearly aware of the existing state of the law, particularly in light of the earlier decision in Ford v.

Ralston v. State Employees' Retirement System

273 Cal. App. 2d 228 · California Court of Appeal · May 22, 1969

custodial duties for industrial disability he shall receive a disability retirement allowance of 50 percent of his final compensation plus an annuity purchased with his accumulated additional contributions, if any, or, if qualified … the California Highway Patrol whose principal duties consist of active law enforcement service, except those whose principal duties are those of a telephone operator, clerk, stenographer, machinist, mechanic, or otherwise clearly

In re N.S. CA1/4

California Court of Appeal · Feb 3, 2026

One rank below presumed father is biological father, which is “a man ‘who has established his paternity but has not established his qualification as a presumed parent.’ [Citation.] … On remand, these errors, now established, will qualify as new evidence or changed circumstances to support any challenges under section 388 that S.L. chooses to make to orders and/or findings previously entered against him

People v. Ary

173 Cal. App. 4th 80 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 20, 2009

The majority clearly fails to appreciate the significance of this fact, as its opinion never once mentions it. … In any case, defendant clearly objected to imposition on him of the presumption of competency.

People v. Scarano CA2/5

California Court of Appeal · Jul 17, 2024

The uncontroverted facts in the conviction record leave no room to infer that the People were pursuing a theory under 3 A probable cause finding at a preliminary hearing may be based on the testimony of a qualified … The uncontradicted facts in the record of conviction “make impossible[, i.e., directly contradict,] the third allegation” necessary to establish a prima facie case.

Guerrero v. Cal. Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation

California Court of Appeal · Nov 7, 2018

Pockets of federal common law do exist, enunciated case-by-case, independent of state law.6 They are rare, but Taylor quite clearly announces one. … Faced with a well-established claim preclusion exception, the CDCR attempts to offer a trump card. According to the CDCR, under Acuña v.

In Re French

106 Cal. App. 3d 74 · California Court of Appeal · May 23, 1980

brought the new rule with him when he assumed his position at San Quentin in .1977; he could not say that the prior policy had overburdened the staff such that security had been threatened. 13 While total exclusion would clearly … see also the fuller treatment by the researchers themselves in Miller, Explorations in Inmate-Family Relationships (1972) pp. 42-43.) 22 The right to have personal visits is the only right enumerated in section 2601 to be qualified

Alfaro v. Terhune

120 Cal. Rptr. 2d 197 · California Court of Appeal · May 16, 2002

A statutory scheme may not be held to be unenforceably vague unless such vagueness “clearly, positively and unmistakably appears.” (Rutherford v. State of California, supra, 188 Cal.App.3d at p. 1276 .) … It establishes the uses to which the information obtained may and may not be put. (§§ 295, subd. (c), 299.5, 299.6.)