Case law

Blankenship v. Allstate Insurance

186 Cal. App. 4th 87 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 29, 2010

“Despite the statute’s overall remedial purpose, the statutory language clearly shows that the Legislature intended to impose strict prerequisites and time limits for claims involving uninsured motorists . . . .” … The only persons not subject to the statute’s requirements are those who qualify for exception under the legal doctrines of estoppel, waiver, impossibility, impracticality, and futility.

People v. Bailey CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · Mar 24, 2015

necessary to establish the defined conduct. … Taylor is clearly distinguishable.

People v. Bocanegra

California Court of Appeal · Apr 28, 2023

It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this chapter to place restrictions on the use of assault weapons and to establish a registration and permit procedure for their lawful sale and possession. … If it was believed that certain weapons that otherwise might qualify as assault weapons were in common use for the lawful purpose of self-defense at the time, then certainly these weapons, like “legitimate hunting rifles,

People v. Superior Court

110 Cal. Rptr. 2d 668 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 10, 2001

Finally, even if we deem the language of section 707, subdivision (d) susceptible of an interpretation that would support indictment, the language of section 602, subdivision (b) clearly is not. … or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the victim or another person. flO (G) Lewd and lascivious acts on a child under the age of 14 years, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 288, unless the defendant qualifies

In re Ernesto L.

California Court of Appeal · Jul 12, 2022

Ernesto then filed a brief arguing that section 602.3 did not apply to him because he did not commit a qualifying offense. … Although Ernesto argued otherwise below, it is uncontested on appeal that he committed a qualifying offense under section 602.3. (See Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd.

Apple v. Davis CA2/8

California Court of Appeal · Nov 3, 2015

August 28, 2014. 7 539 (Wilson), the court held a defect in the notice of appeal identifying the date of judgment appealed from “does not invalidate the appeal, [if] it clearly … From this set of facts, a reasonable inference is established Lalaine lived with her mother “(c) A minor, whether or not qualified under subdivision (a) or (b), if, at the time of the decedent’s death, the minor

People v. Sarabia CA5

California Court of Appeal · Jan 27, 2026

(a)) that also qualified as a prior “strike” conviction within the meaning of the “Three Strikes” law (§§ 667, subds. (b)–(i), 1170.12, subds. … The court can efficiently address a clearly meritless petition at this stage.

People v. Hughes CA6

California Court of Appeal · Sep 30, 2015

The court concluded that this prior conviction qualified as a strike, because he had personally used a firearm in the commission of the crime. (Id. at p. 1193.) … A determination that a prior conviction qualifies as a strike increases punishment. However, a determination that a petitioner is eligible for resentencing does not.

People v. Phung

9 Cal. App. 5th 866 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 15, 2017

A decade ago, we criticized this test but also reaffirmed it as the established law of this state. [Citation.] … To accept such a broad, overriding intent and objective to preclude punishment for otherwise clearly separate offenses would violate the statute’s purpose to insure that a defendant’s punishment will be commensurate with

Santa Clara County Department of Family & Children's Services v. C.K.

190 Cal. App. 4th 102 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 18, 2010

The court concluded that the parents had not established the sibling relationship exception. … established.

P. v. Penaloza CA4/3

California Court of Appeal · Apr 18, 2013

An appellate court may not interfere with the exercise of that discretion unless it is clearly abused. [Citation.]” (People v. Page (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 161, 187.) … As the court found, defendant’s prior “strike” conviction for robbery not only qualifies as a serious felony (§ 1192.7, subd. (c)(19)), it also qualifies as a violent felony (§ 667.5, subd.

People v. Darby

114 Cal. App. 2d 412 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 26, 1952

Those provisions require all laws of a general nature to have a uniform operation and forbid the Legislature to confer special privileges or immunities or to impose a less penalty on one class of persons arbitrarily selected … Clearly then, such a trustee is either a state or county officer and as such is under the ban of section 1090, and if guilty is punishable pursuant to section 1097.

Donald H. v. Tanya S.

167 Cal. App. 3d 946 · California Court of Appeal · May 3, 1985

decision, the trial court should consider the following: ‘whether there were mitigating circumstances for the department’s failure to consider or offer the services, whether the parent or parents were otherwise eligible and qualified … What Tanya was advised to do by her attorney is clearly within the attorney-client privilege, and Tanya’s trial counsel erred in failing to object to this line of questioning. (See, e.g., People v.

King and Gardiner Farms, LLC v. County of Kern

California Court of Appeal · Mar 20, 2020

Consequently, the plan clearly violates the principle against the delayed implementation of mitigation measures. 3. … Oil Associations have cited to nothing in the record establishing such banks or programs exist.

People v. Burciago

81 Cal. App. 3d 151 · California Court of Appeal · May 8, 1978

The court determined that there was no issue of immunity present, recalled the jury, and allowed the questioning of Purdy to proceed. … The third aspect of the confrontation requirement was clearly met in this case; the ability to observe Purdy’s demeanor was fully provided the trier of fact.

In re S.S.

California Court of Appeal · Apr 14, 2023

Do family friends qualify? Therapists? Pastors? Teachers? Coaches? Doctors? Dentists?”]; In re K.H., supra, 84 Cal.App.5th at pp. 591 fn. 6, 602–603.) … Given that the placement chosen by the juvenile court is clearly in S.S.’s best interests and also promotes rather than eviscerates S.S.’s connection to his biological family, I am hard pressed to say that a tribe’s inability

Boccardo v. Safeway Stores, Inc.

134 Cal. App. 3d 1037 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 13, 1982

Although the record does not establish explicitly the reason for the federal court’s denial of appellants’ motion to amend, the circumstances of the case strongly indicate that the denial was not a discretionary refusal to … If however, the court in the first action would clearly not have had jurisdiction to entertain the omitted theory or ground (or, having jurisdiction, would clearly have declined to exercise it as a matter of discretion),

Bokkes v. Plotkin CA4/3

California Court of Appeal · Jun 27, 2016

The mold report unquestionably contained material beyond what could qualify as a simple business record. (See People v. … community; (2) the witness providing the evidence must be properly qualified as an expert; and (3) the evidence must establish that, in the particular case, the correct and accepted scientific technique was actually followed

Gillespie v. Ormsby

126 Cal. App. 2d 513 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 14, 1954

At that time, plaintiff, who was a relatively young man, was desirous of establishing a career in the oil business. … As has been established, it was one of plaintiff’s covenants under the contract to do so in the event oil was not discovered in paying quantities at 1,900 feet.

Kenworthy v. State of California

236 Cal. App. 2d 378 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 6, 1965

If notice of approval had been given on February 14th, such notice, under the terms of the contract, would clearly have started the six months’ period running. … The state called a witness who did qualify as an expert, Senior Land Agent Miller.