Case law

People v. Oldham CA5

California Court of Appeal · Mar 3, 2025

The court then found the evidence established petitioner acted with reckless indifference to human life, based on the following: “[E]vidence in the record establishes that [petitioner] had knowledge that Mr. … His actions clearly demonstrate a willingness to participate in the violent manner in which the crime was committed.[5]” On that basis, the petition was denied.

White v. Maksimow CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · Mar 16, 2015

"To qualify for a permanent injunction, the plaintiff must prove (1) the elements of a cause of action involving the wrongful act sought to be enjoined . . . ; and (2) the grounds for equitable relief." ( San Diego Unified … Superior court proceedings are clearly covered as a "judicial proceeding." (Civ. Code, § 47, subd. (b).)

Application Group, Inc. v. Hunter Group, Inc.

61 Cal. App. 4th 881 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 23, 1998

Competition for the limited number of qualified computer consultants among prospective employers — including Hunter and AGI — is “stiff.” … Competition among such employers is fierce, both for customers and for qualified employees.

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.

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.

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.]

In re William G. CA5

California Court of Appeal · Jan 23, 2015

The maternal great-uncle and -aunt (the relatives) were being assessed for placement of both boys; in May 2013, the relatives started visiting the boys once a month to establish a relationship with them before making a final … William was current on his physical examinations and immunizations. His last physical was on June 20, 2013; no medical concerns were noted.

Union Pacific Railroad v. Santa Fe Pacific Pipelines, Inc.

231 Cal. App. 4th 134 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 5, 2014

Other times it refers to the “complex aggregate of rights (or claims), privileges, powers, and immunities” that one has in that parcel of land. … Numbers (2) through (5), above, are clearly present in this case.

People v. Valencia CA6

California Court of Appeal · Dec 8, 2014

G. testified at defendant’s trial under a grant of immunity, meaning she would receive immunity as long as she testified truthfully. G.’s mother also testified under a grant of immunity. … “[LEWIS]: Because of the nature of child sexual abuse there often is not a clearly identifiable sign that the offense took place.

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.

Orcilla v. Big Sur, Inc.

244 Cal. App. 4th 982 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 11, 2016

The California Legislature has established a comprehensive set of legislative procedures governing nonjudicial foreclosures. (See Debrunner v. … Agbabiaka’s declaration “clearly indicates that [BofA’s] promise was gratuitous in the sense of being offered without expectation of any exchanged promise or performance.” (Jara, supra, 121 Cal.App.4th at p. 1251.)

El Rovia Mobile Home Park, LLC v. City of El Monte

California Court of Appeal · May 13, 2020

The base rent year is clearly established. El Rovia LLC’s argument is that, as a matter of constitutional law, the City was required to establish 2015 as the base year. … Brabant was well qualified as an expert on mobilehome park rent control and performed extensive analysis to reach his conclusion.

In re K.E. & A.P. CA1/2

California Court of Appeal · Jul 22, 2015

Clearly there was a relationship between Carmen and her older sisters. Both the caseworker and Dr. … by a qualified expert witness; or [¶] (D) The unavailability of suitable families based on a documented diligent effort to identify families meeting the preference criteria. “(3) The burden of establishing good cause

In Re KB

173 Cal. App. 4th 1275 · California Court of Appeal · May 13, 2009

Nevertheless, his history clearly demonstrates the futility of offering reunification services: He is a registered sex offender with a prior conviction for lewd and lascivious acts on a child under the age of 14. (Pen. … That is clearly not the case here. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed. Ramirez, P. J., and King, J., concurred.

Cabral v. Ralphs Grocery Co.

179 Cal. App. 4th 1 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 10, 2009

Clearly, there are some risks that are not reasonably foreseeable. Thus, there is no duty. Such is the case before this court. B. … established."'

MACH-1 RSMH, LLC v. Darras

California Court of Appeal · Aug 5, 2024

the time and reasoned it would preclude such an inordinate delay because that subdivision applied to all voidable transfer claims: “[B]y its use of the term ‘[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law,’ the Legislature clearly … Code, § 916 established exception to UVTA].) Where the UVTA speaks, it governs and “displace[s]”—i.e., preempts—contrary principles. 17 (§ 3439.12.)

People v. Davis

168 Cal. App. 4th 617 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 20, 2008

Defendants have not cited any cases holding that wiretap evidence is immune from the normal requirement that an appropriate motion or objection must be made in the trial court. … “Because the decision whether to object is inherently tactical, the failure to object to evidence will seldom establish incompetence.” (People v.

Adams v. Strathspey Crown Holdings Group CA4/3

California Court of Appeal · May 20, 2026

While adhesion is “‘sufficient to establish some degree of procedural unconscionability,’” “[a] higher degree of procedural unconscionability may be established through an additional showing of oppression or surprise.” … New Cingular Wireless Services, Inc. (9th Cir. 2007) 498 F.3d 976, 985 [“Although there is clearly some disagreement among the California Courts of Appeal over this issue [citations], we have consistently followed the courts

People v. Lopez

198 Cal. App. 4th 1106 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 30, 2011

He could not clearly explain why, if no robbery had been planned, it was important for Brousseau not to say anything. … “A rational juror could also have found the evidence established appellant acted with ‘reckless indifference to human life.’

People v. Trujillo

154 Cal. App. 3d 1041 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 25, 1984

Viewed in the light most favorable to the judgment, as required by the usual rule governing appellate review, the evidence herein established that on August 28, 1981, Paul Sanchez was managing a hotel in Huntington Beach. … It further demonstrates that appellant’s in pro. per. status was clearly a matter of choice.