Case law

People v. Gutierrez

137 Cal. App. 3d 542 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 19, 1982

Here Castello testified to inculpatory statements allegedly made by Gutierrez which would establish the forcible nature of Gutierrez' conduct, an essential element of the prosecution's case. … The issue was clearly not one of different interpretations of the word Gutierrez used but, rather, whether he said it at all. The argument there are two meanings is clearly a smoke screen.

People v. Stewart CA3

California Court of Appeal · Nov 26, 2025

this opinion. 1 trial court for resentencing under Penal Code2 section 1172.6,3 and the trial court denied the petition because, in part, defendant did not qualify … our high court has “repeatedly said, ‘[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. Montano

226 Cal. App. 3d 914 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 9, 1991

The ultimate test remains that which has been the only clearly established test in Anglo-American courts for two hundred years: the test of voluntariness. … Of course, this is clearly not what occurred. The Attorney General likewise does not argue that defendant’s invocation was only a qualified one, foreclosing only a limited area of further interrogation.

People v. Zapisek

54 Cal. Rptr. 3d 873 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 22, 2007

Auluck stated that while all persons with delusions are not necessarily violent, some of them act on their delusions, and in Zapisek's case "he very clearly did, historically." … The decisions in those eases establish the conditions in which a person may be civilly committed. In Kansas v.

California Casualty Insurance v. Northland Insurance

48 Cal. App. 4th 1682 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 30, 1996

If the smaller craft were not used at some time to service the larger one, it would not qualify as a dinghy or tender at all. … As it is undisputed the Waverunner was not being used for that purpose on April 12, 1990, there clearly was no coverage if the policy is interpreted in this manner. *1700 We conclude such an interpretation is required.

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.

In re Aliyah G. CA2/8

California Court of Appeal · Nov 9, 2023

Christian H. attempted to establish paternity of Aliyah by initiating a family law case. … We reverse the juvenile court’s paternity findings that 1) Levi C. qualified as a Kelsey S. presumed father, and 2) Christian H. did not qualify as a presumed father.

Hard v. Hollywood Turf Club

112 Cal. App. 2d 263 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 18, 1952

Taking them by and large, those laws serve the best interest of management and of society as a whole by preserving the *269 manpower of industry and by maintaining the established economy. … It thus appears from the original act and its first amendment that appellant could not have qualified as respondent’s employer under the scaffolding act.

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

Efishoff v. Kirkpatrick CA1/5

California Court of Appeal · Feb 19, 2021

Our Supreme Court has interpreted this to mean that a stipulation is required to qualify a commissioner to act and that without such a stipulation, any ruling by or judgment of the commissioner is void. [Citation.] … In the context of judicial recusal, ‘[p]otential bias and prejudice must clearly be established by an objective standard.’ ” (Haworth v. Superior Court (2010) 50 Cal.4th 372, 389; accord Wechsler v.

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.

Olszewski v. ScrippsHealth

107 Cal. Rptr. 2d 187 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 29, 2001

The standards governing Olszewski's cause of action under the UCL are well established. … The Cel-Tech court cautioned that, in order to invoke this safe harbor, another provision of law must actually bar the action or clearly permit the conduct; it is not enough that the statute does not itself provide a cause

King and Gardiner Farms, LLC v. County of Kern

California Court of Appeal · Feb 26, 2020

Consequently, the plan clearly violates the principle against the delayed implementation of mitigation measures. 3. … Accordingly, under the thresholds of significance listed in the EIR, this yearly impact would qualify as a significant environmental effect.

In re Sims CA4/2

California Court of Appeal · Dec 23, 2025

(b)); (3) petitioner had suffered three prior convictions for offenses qualifying as serious felonies (§ 667, subd. … Second, the statutory authority for resentencing upon the recommendation of the CDCR secretary clearly does not apply.

People v. Hinds

154 Cal. App. 3d 222 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 6, 1984

The trial court’s ruling rejecting appellant’s Miranda objections was clearly erroneous. Because the facts relating to this issue are uncontradicted, we need not defer to the trial court’s finding. (People v. … This “complex of values” requires reversal regardless of whether other evidence establishes guilt or verifies the truth of the confession (Blackburn v.

In re M.T.

California Court of Appeal · Oct 30, 2024

In deciding to unseal records, “a trial court is clearly, if impliedly, determining that there is no ‘overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record,’ and/or that the other requirements of rule … Ill. 2020) 455 F.Supp.3d 630, 638 (finding that the plaintiff’s transgender status qualified as private medical information); Gonzalez v.

People v. Monterrubio CA1/2

California Court of Appeal · Jan 29, 2026

And when it came time to speak about the incidents that were reported, the thing I remember clearly is she started rocking her leg.” … ) “ ‘A person is qualified to testify as an expert if he has special knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education sufficient to qualify him as an expert on the subject to which his testimony relates.’

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

People v. Ruiz CA4/2

California Court of Appeal · May 28, 2025

. [¶] So the record clearly demonstrates that the defendant is the actual shooter and, indeed, he admitted personal use of a firearm in the commission of the offense.· So I think the record clearly demonstrates the defendant … Accordingly, a defendant previously convicted of a qualifying offense files a petition pursuant to section 1172.6.

Barber v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation

203 Cal. App. 4th 638 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 15, 2012

But Barber clearly was not entitled to review his records under paragraph 9.03 of the MOU since it is limited to records requested by “employees.” Citing Melkonians v. … The trial court denied Kime’s petition for a writ of mandate requesting records, concluding Kime failed to establish a right to disclosure under POBRA because he had not established any adverse personnel action was taken