Case law

Gorman v. Tassajara Development Corp.

178 Cal. App. 4th 44 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 6, 2009

We understand Stearman as extending established law. … The statute “was designed to establish mutuality of remedy . . . .” (Id. at p. 285.)

Frisco Land & Mining Co. v. State of California

74 Cal. App. 3d 736 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 7, 1977

The case last cited also established that there was no “due process” violation by the act itself, or by the procedures established for hearing permit applications (43 Cal.App.3d at pp. 325-330). … It is too clearly established to require extensive citation of authority that under certain circumstances a governmental body may require the dedication of property as a condition for its development (see e.g., Associated

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. Olaez CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · Dec 17, 2025

An accusatory pleading need not specify the number of the pertinent sentencing statute, so long as it otherwise clearly notifies the accused of the factual basis on which it is seeking a longer sentence and the information … Olaez’s sentence—the functional equivalent of life in prison without the possibility of parole— clearly advances the latter two of these penological goals.

Ladas v. California State Automobile Ass'n

19 Cal. App. 4th 761 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 22, 1993

“There is perhaps no rule of review more firmly established than the principle that a ruling or decision correct in law will not be disturbed on appeal merely because it was given for the wrong reason. … Since the case was dismissed before trial, CSAA failed to qualify for recovery of exhibit costs under this standard. These items should have been disallowed in their entirety. 3.

P. v. Hernandez CA1/2

California Court of Appeal · Jun 27, 2013

Nor does he argue that the PAS equipment was not “properly functioning” or that the test was not administered by “a qualified operator.” (Id. at p. 417.) … Head pain, however, clearly cannot explain all of appellant’s symptoms and responses. Nor can it explain his elevated blood alcohol level of 0.132 at 3:26 a.m., over an hour after Romo first contacted him.

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.

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.

Chatton v. National Union Fire Insurance

10 Cal. App. 4th 846 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 28, 1992

Wolfson (1982) 30 Cal.3d 721, 740, fn. 9 [ 180 Cal.Rptr. 496 , 640 P.2d 115 , 30 A.L.R.4th 1161 ]) are likewise clearly distinguishable. … It clearly means the common law tort of passing off one’s goods as those of another rather than fraudulent practices against the public as defined in the statute.

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.

Chinn v. KMR Property Management

166 Cal. App. 4th 175 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 22, 2008

Moreover, the negligence cause of action alleged in the complaint, based on CPLP’s duty to protect its tenant from foreseeable harm, clearly related to her tenancy. (Castaneda v. … event that more than one party qualified as a prevailing party.

Paduano v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

169 Cal. App. 4th 1453 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 12, 2009

Paduano does not clearly identify what mileage he claims Honda warranted he could get from his Civic Hybrid. … Title 49 United States Code section 32908 (d) clearly provides that "[a] disclosure about fuel economy or estimated annual fuel costs under this section does not establish a warranty under a law of the United States or a

People v. Heaton CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · Apr 13, 2016

Since the entry into the building in this case was to commit theft by false pretenses, the court reasoned the offense did not qualify for redesignation as shoplifting. … Any other entry into a commercial establishment with intent to commit larceny is burglary.

People v. Wilson

227 Cal. App. 3d 1210 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 21, 1991

The court clearly stated the evidence “shows intent.” Other crimes evidence is properly admissible when relevant to show intent. (Evid. Code, § 1101, subd. (b); People v. … Appellant contends that his prior conviction of burglary does not qualify because appellant was on probation for it at the time he committed the new offense.

Mega RV Corporation v. HWH Corporation

225 Cal. App. 4th 1318 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 30, 2014

breach of implied warranty to manufacturers of component parts”].) 20  This does not mean, however, that a self-described component part manufacturer is always immune … Nor is there trial testimony establishing such an express warranty. Indeed, Mega RV’s appellate briefs are silent as to this factual question.

James v. San Jose Mercury News, Inc.

17 Cal. App. 4th 1 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 30, 1993

Therefore, the qualified constitutional protections -applicable to publications by media "defendants, about private plaintiffs, on matters of public interest or public concern apply to this case. (Cf. Milkovich v. … The record establishes that most of the statements we have identified are either true or at least not so clearly and unequivocally false as to be actionable: James is a “veteran public defender.”

Leo v. Golfsmith CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · Jun 14, 2013

"[T]he phrase 'substantial justification' has been understood to mean that a justification is clearly reasonable because it is well grounded in both law and fact." (Doe v. … "Under the Noerr- Pennington doctrine, those who petition any department of the government for redress are generally immune from statutory liability for their petitioning conduct." (Sosa v.

Vargas v. FMI, Inc.

233 Cal. App. 4th 638 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 23, 2015

The reason for these requirements has been described as follows: “ ‘During the first half of the twentieth century, interstate motor carriers attempted to immunize themselves from liability for negligent drivers by leasing … The chapter, which directs the Secretary of Transportation to establish and revise safety regulations pertaining to commercial trucks and buses (49 U.S.C.

People v. Bailey CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · Mar 24, 2015

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

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