Case law

Kaplan v. Gimelstob CA2/2

California Court of Appeal · Nov 23, 2022

On appeal, Gimelstob raises what boils down to three reasons why Kaplan did not establish minimal merit to his slander per se claim based on these statements—namely, that (1) they do not qualify as slander per se (and thus … Slander per se Both statements made by Gimelstob on the podcast qualify as slander per se because they “[c]harge[]” Kaplan “with [a] crime.” (§ 46, subd. (1).)

Nelson v. Kremer CA1/1

California Court of Appeal · Apr 29, 2016

This does not begin to conclusively establish extortion as a matter of law. … Thus, ‘communications with “some relation” to judicial proceedings’ are ‘absolutely immune from tort liability’ by the litigation privilege [citation].

Robles v. Employment Development Dept.

California Court of Appeal · Aug 1, 2019

) “ ‘[E]ligibility for section 1021.5 attorney fees is established when “(1) [the plaintiff’s] action ‘has resulted in the enforcement of an important right affecting the public interest,’ (2) ‘a significant benefit … Robles is entitled to his costs on appeal. 2 Because we conclude that the legal services provided with respect to Robles I qualify, in their own right, for a fee award under section

People v. MacE

71 Cal. App. 10 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 29, 1925

Appellant contends that later in his testimony the witness so qualified such positive statement as to destroy the force thereof and that, considering the testimony of the witness as a whole, it does not appear therefrom that … App. 781 [ 142 Pac. 495 ].) *22 In the foregoing discussion, the written list of the defendant’s debts, used upon the application for the loan, has not been treated as a false token, as it clearly is not such.

People v. Sanchez CA4/2

California Court of Appeal · Oct 3, 2024

On December 12, 2023, the trial court denied defendant’s petition because defendant did not qualify for relief under section 1172.6. … E022834. 4  The evidence at trial could not establish whether defendant or Gonzalez fired the fatal shot as the guns and bullet casings were not recovered, and the trajectory

People v. Miranda

California Court of Appeal · Mar 18, 2021

“‘It has long been established that “the least touching” may constitute battery. … The evidence supporting the “unconsciousness” element consisted only of S.C.’s testimony, and the testimony does not clearly establish that S.C.

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.

People v. Pierce

California Court of Appeal · Aug 2, 2019

Monica Murphy, previously a physician, was granted use immunity upon the prosecutor’s request before her testimony. … The insurance companies clearly qualify for restitution in the instant case, as each is a “victim” as defined by statute. (See § 1202.4, subd.

U.D. Registry, Inc. v. State

50 Cal. Rptr. 3d 647 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 30, 2006

If the information is not released, the identity thief will not be able to establish credit in the consumer’s name.” (Assem. Com. on Judiciary, Analysis of Sen. Bill No. 168 (2001-2002 Reg. … Our Division Eight colleagues held that Family Code section 2024.6 was invalid because: the First Amendment provides a qualified right of access to court records in marital dissolution litigation; the privacy interests protected

JMR Construction Corp. v. Environmental Assessment & Remediation Management, Inc.

243 Cal. App. 4th 571 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 30, 2015

Spade advised EAR that it had “48 hours to properly man the [P]roject with qualified plumbers.” Spade sent EAR two follow-up emails in September 2007. … Framing and Drywall Phase Damages JMR qualified its vice-president, Ron Rivard, as an expert witness in estimating interior framing and drywall work.

People v. Grimes CA2/4

California Court of Appeal · Jun 17, 2025

Grimes argues this was error, because the “well-established standard” from People v. … “‘“[T]he burden is on the party attacking the sentence to clearly show that the sentencing decision was irrational or arbitrary.”’” (Id. at p. 376.) The standards for a Romero request are well established.

People v. Perez CA4/2

California Court of Appeal · Nov 12, 2024

(b); Stats. 2018, ch. 423, § 65); a prior conviction qualifying as a serious prior felony (§ 667, subd. (a)); and a prior conviction qualifying as a strike offense (§§ 667, subds. (c), (e)(1), 1170.12, subd. (c)(1)). … As a result, the claim is clearly forfeited. 2.

BONNIE P. v. Superior Court

37 Cal. Rptr. 3d 77 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 15, 2005

Gary planned to get Jacqueline into a college, and he explained he qualified for childcare at the college because of his disability. … Ban (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 223, 230 [ 285 Cal.Rptr. 598 ].) “ ‘[I]f the word “substantial” means anything at all, it clearly implies that such evidence must be of ponderable legal significance.

Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal · Oct 7, 2024

Adamson Companies (1981) 30 Cal.3d 358, our state high court rejected prior common law that had “immunized a possessor of land from liability for injury caused by a natural condition of his land to persons or property not … Summary Although we are of the opinion the type of incident at issue in this lawsuit was foreseeable, we conclude public policy clearly weighs in favor of creating a judicial exception to the duty of care in this matter

McFarlin v. Thomas M.

232 Cal. App. 3d 849 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 23, 1991

We find it difficult to conceive what efforts could have been preferred to prevent or eliminate the necessity of removing the children from their home; Amy was clearly at risk of continuing abuse, and Michael was at risk … Evidence Code section 700 states: “[Ejvery person, irrespective of age, is qualified to be a witness . . . .”

Sorenson v. Superior Court

219 Cal. App. 4th 409 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 4, 2013

But they are not special proceedings for which there is a qualified First Amendment right of public access. … presumptively open to the public, the People refer to a large volume of legislative materials of which they have 41 other statutes outside the LPS Act in which the Legislature has more clearly

By-Buk Co. v. Printed Cellophane Tape Co.

163 Cal. App. 2d 157 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 26, 1958

Plaintiff’s undertaking with the Veterans Administration was to train Black, as its employee, in certain skills in order that he might be qualified for employment as a die maker. … Under the evidence here plaintiff’s machines clearly were trade secrets within the definition above quoted.

People v. Smith CA5

California Court of Appeal · Sep 17, 2024

(a)), and that he served two prior prison terms that qualified as prior prison term enhancements under section 667.5, former subdivision (b). … Section 1172.75 establishes a mechanism to provide affected defendants an avenue for relief from now invalid prison prior enhancements.

People v. Romero CA1/3

California Court of Appeal · Apr 15, 2014

“Unless it is clearly shown that ‘on no hypothesis whatever is the sufficient substantial evidence to support the [jury’s] verdict[s,]’ we will not reverse.” … Thus, the record contains sufficient evidence that defendant’s juvenile adjudication qualified as a strike under the Three Strikes law. 3.

People v. Collins

California Court of Appeal · Feb 2, 2021

“[A]n appellate court may take into account ‘nondiscriminatory reasons for a peremptory challenge that are apparent from and “clearly established” in the record [citations] and that necessarily dispel any inference of bias … The disparate treatment between accepted jurors and Margo S. is not obviously explained away by other clearly established reasons in the record.