Case law

Soto v. Walmart CA5

California Court of Appeal · Feb 4, 2025

As is relevant to the case before us, “[t]he term ‘qualified civil liability action’ means a civil action … brought by any person against a … seller of a qualified product … for damages, … or other relief, resulting from … When applicable, the negligence per se doctrine only establishes a presumption of negligence.

Laszloffy v. City of Big Bear Lake CA4/2

California Court of Appeal · Oct 9, 2024

[citation] Abuse of discretion is established when ‘ “there is a reasonable possibility the plaintiff can cure the defect with an amendment.” ’ ” (Ibid.) … On appeal, petitioner bears the burden to establish an abuse of discretion by showing there is a reasonable possibility that any defect can be cured by amendment. (Blank v.

People v. Overstock.Com, Inc.

California Court of Appeal · Jun 2, 2017

Specifically, the use of strikethrough font (“Compare at $190.00”) followed by “today’s price” and then a precise calculation of the purported savings, clearly suggests the actual item’s price has been reduced. … In reviewing this issue, we accept the trial court’s factual findings unless clearly erroneous and determine de novo whether the fine is excessive. (United States v.

In re A.E. CA4/2

California Court of Appeal · Mar 3, 2021

Arsyn was healthy, received his first round of immunizations, and grandmother intended to request a speech therapy referral at his scheduled physical. … But those truths are simply not enough to establish a beneficial parental role, let alone qualify as a compelling reason to forgo adoption.

Allied Signal Aerospace v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.

California Court of Appeal · Jun 5, 2019

Since this necessarily terminates the collateral proceedings pending before the appeals board, the issue whether the appeals board has jurisdiction over home health care for Wiggs qualifies as a threshold issue. … The 2012 stipulation was clearly executed and completed. Nothing in the 2012 stipulation indicates an ongoing agreement to use Nurse Mefford.

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.”

Garcia v. Santana

174 Cal. App. 4th 464 · California Court of Appeal · May 28, 2009

Superior Court (1965) 63 Cal.2d 153 [ 45 Cal.Rptr. 320 , 403 P.2d 728 ], where the court faced the issue of whether a plaintiff, who otherwise qualified for in forma pauperis relief, could nonetheless be denied such relief … Here, the trial court did consider those financial circumstances, but did not clearly consider all of the other circumstances in setting the amount of fees.

In re J.S.

California Court of Appeal · Mar 5, 2024

“The plain and ordinary meaning of the word ‘or’ is well established. When used in a statute, the word ‘or’ indicates an intention to designate separate, disjunctive categories.” (Smith v. … By using the word “conviction” following the disjunctive “or,” the Legislature clearly signified that a conviction in an adult criminal prosecution for a felony offense or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude during the

Nichols v. Alghannam

California Court of Appeal · Feb 18, 2026

The trial court sustained Alghannam’s demurrer on the grounds that plaintiffs’ negligence causes of action were time-barred and their complaint failed to allege conduct that qualified as elder abuse. … Rocha (1971) 3 Cal.3d 893, 899, fn. 12 [“ ‘It has long been established, both in tort and criminal law, that “the least touching” may constitute battery.

People v. Sorden

California Court of Appeal · Jun 15, 2021

As we explain, Appellant did not meet his burden of establishing reversible error. … (c)(4)), “courts may not insert qualifying provisions not intended by the Legislature.” (People v. Goodson (1990) 226 Cal.App.3d 277, 281-282; see City of Cotati v.

City of Indian Wells v. Lawellin CA4/2

California Court of Appeal · Jun 11, 2015

Defendants’ hedge does not qualify as a permissible nonconforming land use. … Defendants have not established error in awarding the City $97,835.84 in attorney fees and costs.

K.F. v. Superior Court

224 Cal. App. 4th 1369 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 25, 2014

The statute then sets forth a list of circumstances that qualify for denial of services. (§ 361.5, subd. (b)(1)—(16).) Here, the court cited subdivision (b)(5) and (6) of section 361.5 to deny services. … finding were clearly and convincingly proven.

Nichols v. Alghannam

California Court of Appeal · Mar 6, 2026

The trial court sustained Alghannam’s demurrer on the grounds that plaintiffs’ negligence causes of action were time-barred and their complaint failed to allege conduct that qualified as elder abuse. … Rocha (1971) 3 Cal.3d 893, 899, fn. 12 [“ ‘It has long been established, both in tort and criminal law, that “the least touching” may constitute battery.

CAT PARTNERSHIP v. County of Santa Cruz

63 Cal. App. 4th 1071 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 13, 1998

Quite clearly, the issue of the property tax owed by the cable system owners was extensively and completely examined by the AAB. … The “cases establish that the key question concerning remand is whether there remain factual determinations to be made in establishing market value.” (Prudential Ins. Co. v.

Borba v. Erickson CA5

California Court of Appeal · Mar 3, 2021

To establish her authority to provide an opinion regarding Dr. … show they are qualified to provide an opinion on the subject matter.

People v. Snow CA1/2

California Court of Appeal · Dec 20, 2024

The second offense—and first qualifying predicate offense—occurred two years later, in April 1985, when Snow was 19 years old. … There is a “strong presumption that legislative enactments ‘must be upheld unless their unconstitutionality clearly, positively, and unmistakably appears. [Citations.]

People v. Hewlett

108 Cal. App. 2d 358 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 27, 1951

Among others, it gave the following qualifying instruction: “The presumption of undue influence to which I have referred is not intended to relieve, and it does not relieve, the prosecution of the burden of proving the guilt … As already pointed out, the court clearly and concisely, in other instructions, informed the jury that the effect of the presumption was not to relieve the prosecution of its burden of proof.

Quinn v. Bay Harbor Investment Properties CA2/1

California Court of Appeal · Aug 1, 2023

was “ ‘cracked and clearly aging, . . . it was largely the same as when it was originally permitted over 70 years ago’ ” and the city “ ‘could not determine that it must be replaced or rebuilt.’ ” As to the second … Nuisance and Negligence A plaintiff must prove three elements to establish a cause of action for private nuisance: “First, the plaintiff must prove an interference with its use and enjoyment of its property.

People v. Mariano CA2/6

California Court of Appeal · Dec 15, 2021

There is well-established precedent regarding defendants committing assault by pointing a gun at a person. “[P]resenting a gun at a person . . . [has] been held to constitute an assault.” (People v. … He did that act willfully, and when he acted, screaming at them that he wanted money, yelling at them, not explaining anything, clearly he’s leading a reasonable person to realize that that act by its nature could directly

Valdes v. Cory

139 Cal. App. 3d 773 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 9, 1983

In consequence, the Legislature established the State Employees’ Retirement *781 System, effective January 1, 1932. (Stats. 1931, ch. 700, § 25.) … In addition, the State, as your employer, contributes a substantial amount on your behalf each month.” 7 The Director of Finance contends that the state’s fiscal crisis qualifies as a “contingency” within the meaning of former