Case law

Westlands Water District v. All Persons Interested etc. CA5

California Court of Appeal · Aug 2, 2024

The party seeking an award under section 1021.5 has the burden to establish all applicable elements. (Vosburg v. County of Fresno (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 439, 450.) … Thus, defendants’ actions clearly benefitted the general public, or at least a large number of people.”

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. Garamallo CA5

California Court of Appeal · Mar 19, 2026

On appeal, defendant claims he was entitled to a full resentencing under the current Three Strikes law because several of his three strike offenses no longer qualify. … Unless the trial court articulated reasons why the defendant fell outside the Three Strikes scheme, the law excluded discretionary choice; establishing requirements to be applied in every case. (People v.

Ghobrial v. Long Beach Memorial Medical Center CA2/3

California Court of Appeal · Apr 9, 2026

by awarding Scherer sanctions.6 Section 2023.030, subdivision (a) provides for the award of sanctions against a party who has misused the 5 Ghobrial suggests that Scherer took inconsistent positions by “claim[ing] immunity … Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 1246, 1269.) “ ‘Substantial justification means clearly reasonable justification that is well grounded in both law and fact.’ ” (Rodriguez, at p. 810

People v. Tabb

228 Cal. App. 3d 1300 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 27, 1991

Fair Employment & Housing Com. (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1379 [ 241 Cal.Rptr. 67 , 743 P.2d 1323 ], must be applied: “Pursuant to established principles, our first task in construing a statute is to ascertain the intent of the Legislature … Where a trial court has discretion to decide an issue, it will be reversed on appeal only where it clearly appears that a prejudicial abuse of discretion has occurred. [Citation.]

People v. Overstock.Com, Inc.

California Court of Appeal · Jun 23, 2017

Specifically, the use of strikethrough font (“Compare at $190.00”) followed by “today’s price” and then a precise calculation of the purported savings, clearly suggests the actual item’s price has been reduced. … In reviewing this issue, we accept the trial court’s factual findings unless clearly erroneous and determine de novo whether the fine is excessive. (United States v.

People v. Vigil

114 Cal. Rptr. 2d 331 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 11, 2001

He noted that “[tjhere clearly is [substantial evidence] in this case” to support the jury’s verdict. … By explicitly referring to “temporary” residences, Penal Code former section 290 clearly contemplated that a registrant might need to register multiple addresses.

People v. Barrios CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · Dec 1, 2022

established a presumption in favor of a lower- term sentence under specified circumstances. … Under the new law, “psychological trauma based on mental illness may be a circumstance qualifying for the lower term presumption in section 1170, subdivision (b)(6).” (Banner, supra, 77 Cal.App.5th at p. 241.)

In re T.W. CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · Sep 28, 2021

There was also another qualifying predicate offense—T.W.’s possession of a firearm as a minor (§ 186.22, subd. … 24 that “[i]f the defendant and another gang member both committed qualifying crimes during the course of the charged event, that event alone may be sufficient to establish a pattern

Shive v. Barrow

88 Cal. App. 2d 838 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 24, 1948

On January 27, 1941, her will of October 12, 1940, was admitted to probate and Zelza qualified as administrator with the will annexed and continued to act as such until his death. … No principle of equitable jurisprudence is more firmly established than this. (1 Pomeroy’s Equity Jurisprudence, sec. 221.)

In re K.S.

California Court of Appeal · Feb 24, 2016

Those special needs qualified K.S. for financial assistance through the state’s Adoption Assistance Program.  Andrea S. (mother) raised K.S. in Hollister. … She has clearly demonstrated her embroilment with the mental health department.

People v. Bowers CA3

California Court of Appeal · Sep 22, 2014

a sentencing requirement to be applied in every case where the defendant has at least one qualifying strike, unless the sentencing court “conclud[es] that an exception to the scheme should be made because, for articulable … First, ‘ “[t]he burden is on the party attacking the sentence to clearly show that the sentencing decision was irrational or arbitrary. [Citation.]

Waisbren v. Peppercorn Productions, Inc.

41 Cal. App. 4th 246 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 20, 1995

In this case, there is no dispute that defendants qualify as “artists” under the Act. 6 Our interpretation of the statutory language does not render the term “occupation” mere surplusage. (See Lab. Code, § 1700.4, subd. … Thus, the Commission and the Legislature clearly decided not to adopt a licensing exception for incidental procurement efforts. 14 This provision was first enacted in 1982 (Stats. 1982, ch. 682, § 3, p. 2815) but was to remain

People v. Monroe

12 Cal. App. 4th 1174 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 27, 1993

The parties have cited no authority and we have found none which clearly articulates the standard an officer should apply when a citee 5 has no driver’s license, other than general conclusory statements that the evidence … Our statement that the officer must accept certain forms of identification is qualified by the assumption the officer has no reason to believe the identification is false.

Chamberlin v. Wong

134 Cal. App. 3d 292 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 26, 1982

It was, therefore, clearly the law then that (pursuant to Prob. … Everett’s will clearly did not contain any such requirement.

Oil Workers International Union v. Superior Court

103 Cal. App. 2d 512 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 18, 1951

“We therefore turn to its legislation for evidence that Congress has clearly manifested an exclusion of the state power sought to be exercised in this ease.” (P. 253.) … In this connection, they claim that their constitutional immunity from unlawful search and seizure was violated, rendering the use of the documents incompetent and the entire proceeding void.

Moelleken v. Jones CA2/6

California Court of Appeal · Oct 1, 2013

Jones's email in determining whether to recommend the establishment of a spine call panel. … 'It is only in extreme cases that the court, when acting promptly and speaking clearly and directly on the subject, cannot, by instructing the jury to disregard such matters, correct the impropriety of the act of counsel

People v. Williams CA2/6

California Court of Appeal · Aug 19, 2024

He was not “thinking 2 clearly” at the time of this incident. There was a moment at CVS when he was thinking of taking the jacket. … To be clear, we do not hold mental illness alone qualifies for the lower term presumption.

Victor v. Hedges

91 Cal. Rptr. 2d 466 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 28, 1999

can be no reasonable difference of opinion as to whether Hedges subjected plaintiff to an unreasonable risk of harm or as to the foreseeability that a driver would become distracted and, due to road conditions that only qualified … The court noted that the vehicle Was parked in violation of the .predecessor to section 22500, subdivision (f) (former § 586) and stated that “plaintiff was clearly within the protection of that statute . . . .” (159 Cal.App

COMMERCIAL UNDERWRITERS v. Superior Court

100 Cal. Rptr. 2d 699 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 14, 2001

judgment establishing the absence of such a duty. … In our view, this is insufficient to establish Judge Gardner's "unavailability."