Case law

Howell v. State Dept. of State Hospitals

California Court of Appeal · Dec 5, 2024

Sherri Holt, Howell’s qualified medical evaluator Dr. Corey Hahn, and DSH’s expert psychologist Dr. … Hahn evaluated Howell four times between 2017 and 2020, including a 2017 qualified medical evaluation in connection with Howell’s workers’ compensation claim stemming from the assault.

In Re KF

173 Cal. App. 4th 655 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 29, 2009

He expressed "our belief and a lay belief but I think a reasonable reading that the medical procedure used in this particular instance was clearly an over[-]treatment for a broken finger. [¶] Such things occur and are commonplace … We will direct its correction. [3] We qualify this statement only to acknowledge that an administrative agency's interpretation of a law within its special purview may be entitled to appellate deference.

Lisec v. United Air Lines, Inc.

85 Cal. App. 3d 969 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 30, 1978

The evidence clearly shows that United had already received many Suggestions from its employees on Suggestion Forms, and by letters from others, suggesting substantially the same reduced fare liberalization urged by appellants … We, therefore, conclude that there was no substantial evidence supporting a finding that appellants qualified for a regular award or punitive damages and that there is no contractual basis for an Impetus Award.

Connor v. First Student, Inc.

California Court of Appeal · Aug 14, 2015

First also admits that those background checks were used to confirm that Connor and the other employees “are properly qualified to safely perform their job duties.” 7  There … the Court should not give effect to two patent laws, each with different requirements and protections, that protect the same thing, “‘when two statutes are capable of coexistence, it is the duty of the courts, absent a clearly

People v. Sharret

191 Cal. App. 4th 859 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 10, 2011

Walker (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1013, 1024 [ 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 902 , 819 P.2d 861 ] [restitution fine ‘qualifies as punishment’ for purpose of enforcing plea bargain]; People v. … Innocence Protection Act, there shall be levied an additional penalty of one dollar for every ten dollars ($10) or fraction thereof in each county which shall be collected together with and in the same manner as the amounts established

McKenzie v. Vanderpoel

61 Cal. Rptr. 3d 129 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 13, 2007

The principles governing interpretation and enforcement of no contest clauses are well established: “ ‘On the one hand, they are favored since they discourage litigation and give effect to the testator’s intent. … “[E]ven though a no contest clause is strictly construed to avoid forfeiture, it is the testator’s intentions that control, and a court ‘must not rewrite the [testator’s] will in such a way as to immunize legal proceedings

DEPARTMENT OF INDUS. REL. v. Fidelity Roof Co.

60 Cal. App. 4th 411 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 23, 1997

The original contractor and all subcontractors on a qualifying public works project 4 are required to pay prevailing rates of wage. (§§ 1771, 1774.) … The statute clearly indicates the limitations period will begin to run from the later of two events.

Opperwall v. Bank of America CA1/4

California Court of Appeal · Jul 30, 2024

A demurrer will lie where the complaint “ ‘ “has included allegations that clearly disclose some defense or bar to recovery.” ’ ” (Holiday Matinee, Inc. v. … These allegations, however, are conclusory and unaccompanied by any factual allegations necessary to establish a claim for wrongful foreclosure. (See Kalnoki v.

People v. Celestine

9 Cal. App. 4th 1370 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 28, 1992

Appellant contends this determination is in error. (1) "The scope of our review of constitutional claims of this nature is well established. … While no direct questions were asked, I conclude this qualifies as an "interrogation" within the meaning of Miranda and its progeny.

Chico Police Officers' Ass'n v. City of Chico

232 Cal. App. 3d 635 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 25, 1991

It held that, considered in context, the statement clearly dealt with a matter of public concern. … They have offered no evidence that Moore qualifies as a policy-level official with a special working relationship which might justify an “inference of disruption” to departmental operations.

Ryan v. California Interscholastic Federation

114 Cal. Rptr. 2d 787 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 24, 2001

In other words, an attorney fees award under section 1021.5 will only be reversed where “ ‘it is clearly wrong or has no reasonable basis.’ [Citation.]” (Gregory v. … Nor has Ryan established that the cost of his victory transcended his personal interest in pursuing the litigation.

People v. Johnson CA4/3

California Court of Appeal · Mar 7, 2016

Garceau (1993) 6 Cal.4th 140, 171.) 14 peremptory challenge that are apparent from and ‘clearly established’ in the record [citations] and that necessarily dispel … That potential benefit was clearly articulated by gang expert Nye in his testimony.

Ellis v. Toshiba America Information Systems., Inc.

218 Cal. App. 4th 853 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 7, 2013

Thus, the court‘s fee award ―‗will not be disturbed unless the appellate court is convinced that it is clearly wrong.‘‖ (Serrano v. Priest (1977) 20 Cal.3d 25, 49.) … Second, Toshiba argues that SLO‘s staff are not qualified paralegals under California law, and therefore the trial court erred in awarding fees for their work.

SJJC Aviation Services v. City of San Jose

California Court of Appeal · Jun 20, 2017

In responding to SJJC’s letter of protest, the purchasing officer reminded the company that the City’s “clearly stated” objective was to obtain proposals from qualified firms that would “ ‘design, develop, finance, construct … SJJC has thus failed to establish either a beneficial interest as a competitive bidder or a weighty public need requiring a citizen’s intervention to enforce a public duty.

Hudson v. BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION ETC.

59 Cal. App. 4th 1310 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 11, 1997

Code, § 20000 et seq.) establishes PERS, a retirement system for employees of the state and participating local public agencies. … Based on those assumptions, it establishes rates for member contributions to be paid by employees, and by employers on their behalf.

Michels v. Watson

229 Cal. App. 2d 404 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 31, 1964

"Courts of justice are established not only to decide upon the controverted rights of the citizens as against each other, but also upon rights in controversy between them and the Government...." … The present State Board of Equalization shall continue in office until their successors, as herein provided for, shall be elected and shall qualify.

People v. Gutierrez CA3

California Court of Appeal · Nov 17, 2023

ultimate question remains whether dismissal is in furtherance of justice and trial court retains discretion to impose enhancements without a public safety determination, even if one or more of the mitigating circumstances are established … In such circumstances, . . . the appropriate remedy is to remand for resentencing unless the record ‘clearly indicate[s]’ that the trial court would have reached the same conclusion ‘even if it had been aware that it had

People v. Ocegueda

California Court of Appeal · Jun 14, 2023

The information also alleged that Ocegueda personally used a knife in the commission of the murder for purposes of Penal Code section 12022, subdivision (b)(1), and that he had sustained a prior conviction that qualified … To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, a “[d]efendant must show that counsel’s performance was both deficient and prejudicial . . . .” (People v. Castillo, supra, 16 Cal.4th at pp. 1014-1015.)

West Coast Life Insurance v. Ward

33 Cal. Rptr. 3d 319 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 25, 2005

Section 332 states more clearly the requirement of materiality: “Each party to a contract of insurance shall communicate to the other, in good faith, all facts within his knowledge which are or which he believes to be material … Hetherington testified that $3 million would have been the “outside limit” of insurance for which Lois would have qualified under WCL’s underwriting guidelines reflected in its “Guide to Initial Underwriting Requirements.

Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Aceves

233 Cal. App. 3d 544 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 16, 1991

Proc., § 389.) 7 A trial court’s exercise of its discretion under section 1061 will be upheld on appeal unless an abuse of discretion is clearly shown. … In our view, such qualifying remarks made Chesler’s deposition testimony ambiguous, but did not necessarily establish that Chesler was incompetent to testify about the substance of his conversations. 9 Although both parties