Case law

People v. Banks CA2/3

California Court of Appeal · Jul 23, 2024

Following amendments to section 1025 in 1997, which established that it was for the court and not the jury to decide issues of identity (§ 1025, subd. … The court explained: “[O]fficial government records clearly describing a prior conviction presumptively establish that the conviction in fact occurred, assuming those records meet the threshold requirements of admissibility

AMN Healthcare, Inc. v. Aya Healthcare Services, Inc.

California Court of Appeal · Nov 1, 2018

This provision clearly restrained individual defendants from practicing with Aya their chosen profession — recruiting travel nurses on 13-week assignments with AMN. … [I]n 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.' " (DVD Copy Control Assn., Inc. v.

Powerhouse Motorsports v. Yamaha Motor Corp.

California Court of Appeal · Dec 24, 2013

As Hardin clearly states, "The jurisdiction of the New Motor Vehicle Board [ ] has limits." (Hardin, supra, 52 Cal.App.4th at p. 587.) … We conclude that Fresno Motors is inapposite and relies, not on California precedent, but rather a Ninth Circuit case that did not rely on or cite Applied Equipment and did not concern the immunity of a noncontractual party

People v. Wilson CA5

California Court of Appeal · May 16, 2024

Rather, “defendant is clearly recidivist.” … To achieve this end, ‘the Three Strikes law … establishes a sentencing requirement to be applied in every case where the defendant has at least one qualifying strike, unless the sentencing court “conclud[es] that an exception

Jeffrey v. Kleefeld CA6

California Court of Appeal · May 7, 2013

Since Jeffrey was bound by these admissions, he could not establish that Kleefeld‟s alleged 1987 funding promise was made without consideration. … The undisputed facts established that Gonsenhauser did not qualify as a dependent under Atoms‟s insurance policy.

Kirk v. First American Title Insurance

183 Cal. App. 4th 776 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 7, 2010

Thereafter, Koski established an ethical screen around Cohen. … Clearly, the safest approach would have been for Sonnenschein to screen Cohen completely from the First American team and all First American cases.

Guardianship of Casad

106 Cal. App. 2d 134 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 16, 1951

Code sec. 196), and is also qualified and strictly limited by the fact that the child itself is a human being, and as such vested with .rights for which it is entitled to protection. … Clearly the preference that is given to a relative would not be absolute.

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.

People v. Amirian CA2/3

California Court of Appeal · Aug 21, 2020

As a threshold requirement, section 1473.7, subdivision (e)(2), clearly says the plea must have been made “pursuant to” a qualifying statute—not pursuant to a future qualifying statute impliedly contemplated at the time of … A party seeking to establish prejudice under section 1473.7 must “establish[ ] he or she would have rejected the existing plea bargain to accept or attempt to negotiate another.”

Westoil Terminals Co. v. Industrial Indemnity Co.

110 Cal. App. 4th 139 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 3, 2003

The trial court found, inter alia, no potential for coverage under the comprehensive general liability policy at issue, based upon a qualified pollution exclusion (QPE) in Industrial’s policy. We affirm. … Here, Westoil cannot establish that Industrial waived its right to assert the QPE as a defense.

Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's etc. v. Whirlpool Corp. CA2/1

California Court of Appeal · Dec 21, 2022

Holden” and the “harm to the [insureds]” because Holden was not “qualified and competent to offer this causation testimony.” Underwriters acknowledges “[t]he trial court found that . . . … Notwithstanding Underwriters’ failure to identify clearly the alleged design defect(s) at issue, we address two potential purported defects in design.

In re Mia M.

California Court of Appeal · Mar 1, 2022

A biological father is one whose paternity of the child has been established, but who has not established that he qualifies as the child’s presumed father under Family Code section 7611. 9 In his opening brief, father … have established paternity and asserted parental rights.

Littlefield v. Littlefield

California Court of Appeal · Nov 15, 2024

First, the moving defendant has the burden of establishing that the lawsuit’s claims are based on activity protected by the statute. [Citation.] … Comparing its statements and conduct against the statute, it must demonstrate activity qualifying for protection. [Citation.]

Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. Anna O.

121 Cal. App. 4th 909 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 29, 2004

that included: (1) a “report of health examination for school entry,” showing that Jacob had seen a doctor in April 2003; (2) an appointment card scheduling a dental appointment for Jacob on May 12, 2003; and (3) Jacob’s immunization … Read together, the statutes clearly reflect a legislative intent that the juvenile court is limited to reviewing whether [the Department] abused its discretion in placing the minor ...” (Department of Social Services v.

Black v. Financial Freedom Senior Funding Corp.

112 Cal. Rptr. 2d 445 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 5, 2001

Clearly, there is no express preemption. … We thus hold that TILA does not preempt the CPPA and that TILA compliance does not immunize lenders . . . against CPPA liability. [Citations.]” (Id. at p. 500.)

People v. Lopez CA5

California Court of Appeal · Apr 11, 2022

Lopez asserts evidence establishes four of the six criteria in section 1001.36, subdivision (b)(1), were satisfied. Specifically, she asserts she suffers from a qualifying mental illness (§ 1001.36, subd. … Thus, multiple aggravating circumstances were duly established.

People v. Jimenez

California Court of Appeal · Jul 3, 2025

Clark (2011) 52 Cal.4th 846, 892 [relevant evidence “ ‘tends “ ‘logically, naturally, and by reasonable inference’ to establish material facts” ’ ”].) … But because a homicide charge is necessary but not sufficient to qualify for a LWOP term, counting those defendants15 convicted of homicide who are serving life sentences reveals nothing about whether these defendants are

People v. Sandoval CA2/2

California Court of Appeal · Sep 26, 2024

“Section 1172.6 provides a mechanism whereby people ‘who believe they were convicted of murder for an act that no longer qualifies as murder following the crime’s redefinition in 2019[] may seek vacatur of their murder conviction … our Supreme Court explained in Lewis, “[t]he record of conviction will necessarily inform the trial court’s prima facie inquiry . . . allowing the court to distinguish petitions with potential merit from those that are clearly

People v. Brown CA2/2

California Court of Appeal · Nov 18, 2022

First, defendant argues that a person’s “participation” in an armed robbery is not enough to establish that he was a major participant who acted with reckless indifference to human life. … For the reasons explained above, defendant’s particular role in this particular robbery qualifies him as a major participant who was recklessly indifferent to human life.

Salahutdin v. Valley of California, Inc.

24 Cal. App. 4th 555 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 28, 1994

Consequently, there is no clear line establishing when a fiduciary’s breach of the duty of care will be merely negligent and when it may be characterized as constructive fraud. … Clearly, some cases award what appear to be “benefit of the bargain” damages. (E.g., Pepitone v. Russo, supra, 64 Cal.App.3d 685 ; Walsh v. Hooker & Fay, supra, 212 Cal.App.2d 450 ; Simone v.