Case law

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.

California Valley Miwok Tribe v. California Gambling Control Commission

231 Cal. App. 4th 885 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 21, 2014

For this argument, the Tribe relies on the statement preceding the list that the "listed Indian entities are acknowledged to have the immunities and privileges available to federally recognized Indian tribes by virtue … Commission clarifies that it does not withhold RSTF funds from a tribe simply because that tribe is not awarded a 23 The BIA may refuse to award a contract for ISDEAA benefits based on "a specific finding that clearly

Department of Fish & Game v. Superior Court

197 Cal. App. 4th 1323 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 2, 2011

A number of the issues identified by the trial court as subject to common proof clearly are not. … There is no particular threshold of loss that qualifies a particular interference with property as a nuisance.

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 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. Crosby CA5

California Court of Appeal · Oct 22, 2024

Lenart, supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 1127 [“The Anderson factors are not the exclusive means for establishing premeditation and deliberation”].) … There was no evidence that the EMTs’ records qualified as business records. And even if the hospital’s records qualified as business records, Devonte’s “statements probably don’t qualify.”

Sattley v. The City of Beverly Hills CA2/2

California Court of Appeal · Jan 22, 2025

If the employee establishes the existence of such a bona fide religious belief, “the employer must establish it initiated good faith efforts to accommodate or no accommodation was possible without producing undue hardship … Ovrom later specified: “upon reviewing the information he shared, it did not, in our opinion, qualify as being a sincerely-held religious belief that would qualify for not being vaccinated.

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.

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

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.

Catholic Medical Mission Bd. v. Bonta

California Court of Appeal · Mar 27, 2025

According to respondents, the trial court has “inherent authority to grant any relief consistent with the successful cause of action and the established facts.” … know about this contrary qualifier unless they happen to learn of the trial court’s judgment.”

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.

Shell v. Van Dyke CA3

California Court of Appeal · Nov 16, 2021

Citing the well-established rule that self-represented litigants are not exempt from following the rules of procedure, the Stover court concluded that the litigant was not immune from the consequences of failing to do so … Here, the discovery responses at issue clearly gave rise to an issue involving a mixed question of law and fact, and thus did not constitute judicial admissions as to the nature of the monthly payments. (See Ghirardo v.

People v. Saetern

California Court of Appeal · Jul 17, 2014

Under section 3051, juveniles who qualify are afforded a periodic opportunity for release on parole regardless of the sentence imposed. II. XENG’S SENTENCE AND THE EFFECT OF SECTION 3051 A. … We recognize that the California Supreme Court took the unusual step of reducing a juvenile’s first degree murder conviction to second degree murder based on a unique combination of facts clearly demonstrating diminished

People v. Marquez CA4/3

California Court of Appeal · Jan 21, 2015

The ‘qualifying offense’ listed for the taking of defendant’s DNA [was] ‘PC 459.’ Defendant was never convicted of, or even charged with, the violation of section 11350 in Ventura County. … King, __ U.S. __, 133 S.Ct. 1958, 186 L.Ed.2d 1 (2013), the answer is clearly yes.” (Haskell v. Harris, supra, 745 F.3d at p. 1271.)

People v. Mitchell

81 Cal. App. 4th 132 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 1, 2000

By deciding that the Government had failed to come forward with sufficient proof of petitioner’s capacity to be responsible for criminal acts, that court was clearly saying that Burks’ criminal culpability had not been established … In doing so, we specifically found that as a matter of law the evidence presented by the People was insufficient on the issue of whether the federal bank robbery qualified as a serious felony in California for purposes of

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.

Villanueva v. Cyprexx Services CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · Apr 26, 2013

Purepac Pharmaceutical Co. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 72, 78-79 [general demurrer will lie where the complaint has included allegations that clearly disclose some defense or bar to recovery]; Flores v. … This includes qualifying acts committed by attorneys in representing clients in litigation. [Citations.]

Estate of Hilton

44 Cal. App. 4th 890 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 23, 1996

`"It is an established canon of interpretation that statutes are not to be given a retrospective operation unless it is clearly made to appear that such was the legislative intent."' [Citations.] … The statutory formula merely established an arbitrary number as the amount of the fees to be awarded. It was not designed to establish, and substantially never established, the exact value of the statutory services.

People v. Marcellus L.

229 Cal. App. 3d 134 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 10, 1991

This well-established rule is not changed or altered because the consent is embodied in a search condition rather than expressed at the time of the actual search. … Since such an expectation or understanding was reasonable, appellant clearly has standing to complain.