Case law

United Teachers of Ukiah v. Board of Education

201 Cal. App. 3d 632 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 17, 1988

Appellants rely heavily on this dictum, claiming that it validates their attempt to recruit particularly well-qualified teachers by offering higher initial salaries. We disagree. … This testimony clearly shows that appellants were well aware of the Teachers’ concern with the issue of uniformity in salary classification both during and after the negotiation of the 1985 contract. Moreover, as Mr.

Cabrera v. Gransee CA6

California Court of Appeal · Apr 22, 2016

Cheng was not qualified to give an opinion on that issue. … “Our consideration of the issue whether the judgment was supported by substantial evidence is governed by the well-established standard of review applicable to any claim that a judgment or finding is not supported by the

People v. Tellechea CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · Nov 30, 2023

establish the communication was not confidential or that the privilege does not for other reasons apply. … However, contrary to Matthew’s assertion and the People’s concession, the record clearly shows he was convicted of seven, and not six, offenses (i.e., counts 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 12, & 13).

Cal. Public Records Research, Inc. v. County of Alameda

California Court of Appeal · Jul 22, 2019

First, CPRR fails to establish the County’s calculation of recoverable “indirect costs” violates section 27366. … But according to qualified employees of the County, its calculation of indirect costs complies with applicable accounting standards, including the OMB Circular.

In re N.L.

California Court of Appeal · Jul 21, 2022

“Malice in law” means an intent to do a wrongful act, established either by proof or presumption of law. (Ibid.) … “Moreover, neither the text nor the history of [Penal Code] section 1001.36 clearly indicates that the Legislature intended that the Estrada rule would not apply to this diversion program.” (Ibid.)

People v. Laws

120 Cal. App. 3d 1022 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 26, 1981

Superior Court (1965) 231 Cal.App.2d 587, 589 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 68 ]: “Every statement in the document before us is declared ‘under penalty of perjury,’ and clearly is vouched for by declarant. … An inference is a deduction of fact that may logically and reasonably be drawn from another fact or group of facts established by the evidence.”

California Youth Authority v. State Personnel Board

128 Cal. Rptr. 2d 514 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 18, 2002

Clearly, SPB’s decision concerning Henderson’s dismissal fell within that description. (§§ 19578-19582 [statutory provisions for evidentiary hearing concerning disciplinary action of state employees].) … Thus, section 11405.50, subdivision (a), provides: “ ‘Decision’ means an agency action of specific application that determines a legal right, duty, privilege, immunity, or other legal interest of a particular person.”

Coastal Hills Rural etc. v. Co. of Sonoma

California Court of Appeal · Aug 31, 2016

“In interpreting CEQA, we accord the Guidelines great weight except where they are clearly unauthorized or erroneous.” (Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. … Ultimately, the Board required Ratna Ling to have its own fire truck on site along with a minimum of two trained and qualified volunteer firefighters to respond to emergency calls.

Ramirez v. PK I Plaza 580 SC LP

California Court of Appeal · Nov 10, 2022

) “ ‘[I]n the absence of a statutory provision establishing an exception to the general rule of . . . section 1714, courts should create one only where “clearly supported by public policy.” ’ ” (Kesner v. … Accordingly, Laico falls far short of establishing that the Privette 14 doctrine immunizes a landowner from liability because the owner necessarily delegates duties to the land’s

Tran v. Farmers Group, Inc.

128 Cal. Rptr. 2d 728 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 27, 2003

However, even if we assume that the attomey-in-fact of a reciprocal insurer qualifies as an “insurance agent” (see § 31), section 1500 declares that Insurance Code provisions “regarding the appointment, licensing, qualification … Thus, the only undisputed facts respondents managed to establish is that they did not issue insurance policies in their own name to Tran, and that Tran’s claim was handled by exchange employees.

In re Dayton J. CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · May 29, 2013

It does not qualify as a voluntary declaration of paternity or a judgment of paternity. … A determination "committed to the sound discretion of the juvenile court . . . should not be disturbed on appeal unless an abuse of discretion is clearly established."

D.A. McCosker Construction v. Dept. of Water Resources CA3

California Court of Appeal · Mar 6, 2023

Although this statute, consistent with section 7106, clearly contemplates that courts could suspend licenses, it does not purport to grant courts any authority at all. … The calculation for most of this amount— over $3,200,000—was established independent of Lash’s testimony.

Marriage of Pollard CA2/2

California Court of Appeal · May 27, 2026

However, the court determined that due to the mixed results of the litigation, neither party qualified as the prevailing party and rejected their requests for attorney fees. C. … It established the parties did not intend the MSA to be the final, complete, or exclusive expression of Eric’s child support obligations in the absence of Form FL-350. (See Code Civ.

People v. Moore CA3

California Court of Appeal · Feb 2, 2016

applicable here, that “in every case in which a victim has suffered economic loss as a result of the defendant’s conduct, the court shall require that the defendant make restitution to the victim or victims in an amount established … We recognize that “an exception [to a general power] should not be construed to limit the general power except to the extent that it clearly does so.” (Hurst v. City & County of San Francisco (1949) 33 Cal.2d 298, 301.)

People v. Sanders

75 Cal. App. 3d 501 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 29, 1977

On redirect examination, the prosecutor attempted to establish that Ware had lied because he was afraid that if he admitted the extent of his involvement in the crime, particularly carrying a handgun, he could be retried … Officer Reynolds’ extrajudicial statements admitted via the tape and transcript clearly do not qualify. The People argue that the officer’s narrative statements were admissible as adoptive admissions (Evid.

People v. Herrera

California Court of Appeal · May 22, 2024

Counsel continued, “The Court could also state clearly . . . … Clearly, the leniency note itself did not harm Herrera.

Mattson Technology, Inc. v. Applied Materials, Inc.

California Court of Appeal · Nov 20, 2023

Using his laptop, he sent over a dozen e-mails attaching highly confidential Applied documents—many of them clearly marked as such—to two personal email accounts. … A single overlapping question of law or fact may qualify as a “controversy” sufficient to require imposition of a stay. (Heritage Provider Network, Inc. v.

Global Hawk Insurance v. Le

225 Cal. App. 4th 593 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 14, 2014

’s theories and establishing that the action was without merit.’ … And again, Le was told point blank by Vu that he did not qualify for worker’s compensation. There are, in short, triable issues of fact whether either of the exclusions Global Hawk relied on applies.

In re L.J. CA3

California Court of Appeal · Aug 19, 2025

sought to establish a relationship with L.J. through their five visits following his release from prison. … Instead, a ruling on a section 388 petition is “ ‘committed to the sound discretion of the juvenile court, and the trial court’s ruling should not be disturbed on appeal unless an abuse of discretion is clearly established

Realty Projects, Inc. v. Smith

32 Cal. App. 3d 204 · California Court of Appeal · May 9, 1973

They argue that this fact establishes a failure of proof of the causation which the court found. We disagree. … Such insurance was clearly excessive in cost.