Case law

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

Lightbourn v. Casa Del Mar CA2/4

California Court of Appeal · Apr 21, 2016

This court may find error in the trial court’s admission of expert testimony “‘only if the witness “‘clearly lacks qualification as an expert.’” [Citation.]’” (People v. Singleton (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1, 21.) … The court’s conclusion that she was qualified to render an opinion on the cause of appellant’s fall was not an abuse of discretion.

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

Lantz v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

226 Cal. App. 4th 298 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 9, 2014

First, the extra shift is offered to qualified officers in order of seniority. If no one volunteers, then the shift is assigned in reverse order of seniority. … clearly differed from the normal 12.

People v. Rodriguez CA6

California Court of Appeal · Aug 13, 2014

the scope of the warrant to authorize a search of only those locations expressly mentioned in addendum #1, the trial court properly denied the motion to suppress evidence on the ground that the utility van and cargo truck qualified … However, Childress did not hold that there must be “affirmative evidence” that a vehicle is inoperable in order to establish that it as a storage area.

Kilroy v. Superior Court of L.A. Cty.

54 Cal. App. 4th 793 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 28, 1997

Morton, supra, 467 U.S. at p. 828 [ 104 S.Ct. at p. 2773 ]), the statute clearly indicates that Georgia is the state with “continuing, exclusive jurisdiction” given the plain language of 28 United States Code section 17388 … United States (1960) 364 U.S. 507, 509-512 [ 81 S.Ct. 260, 262-263 , 5 L.Ed.2d 249 ] [federal grant of immunity does not violate Tenth Amendment police powers]; Roth v.

Carter v. Mike Thompson Recreational Vehicles CA4/3

California Court of Appeal · Sep 14, 2021

We found the appellant’s litmus test too exacting, noting “the well-established rule that a corporation acts through its agents and employees.” (Id. at p. 1296.) … The contract clearly required EHGNA, not Thompson, to pay Carter’s attorney fees. C.

People v. McClintic CA1/2

California Court of Appeal · Apr 30, 2026

The prosecutor disagreed, arguing that while Cabrera established that serious bodily injury and great bodily injury have different statutory definitions, it did not establish a “hierarchy” between the two standards. … establish that the prior CALJIC instructions were constitutionally defective.

Hughes v. Pham CA4/2

California Court of Appeal · Mar 10, 2015

As we have discussed above, our Supreme Court clearly disagrees. (Fein, supra, 38 Cal.3d at pp. 158-159 and cases cited therein.) 9 (Yates, at p. 200.) … Evidence Code section 720 provides: “(a) 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

People v. Rubio CA5

California Court of Appeal · May 25, 2022

Garcia subsequently was arrested and charged with Morales’s murder, and later was granted immunity and gave a statement regarding the circumstances of the crime. … Finally, the bill added section 1170.95 to provide a procedure for those convicted of a qualifying offense “to seek relief under the two ameliorative provisions above.” (Gentile, at p. 843.)

P.v. Misikei CA2/7

California Court of Appeal · Jul 9, 2024

The People also argued that, even if section 1172.6 applied, Misikei was a major participant in a qualifying felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life. … Berry-Vierwinden (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 921, 936 [defendant could not “establish that he ‘could not presently be convicted of murder or attempted murder because of changes to Section 188 or 189’ made by Senate Bill No. 1437

People v. Broadbent

California Court of Appeal · Apr 15, 2020

Since 1975 the procedural requirements for fitness hearings have been established by [Welfare and Institutions Code] section 707.’ [Citation.] … First, ‘ “[t]he burden is on the party attacking the sentence to clearly show that the sentencing decision was irrational or arbitrary. [Citation.]

People v. Hale

232 Cal. App. 2d 112 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 5, 1965

This was a minor and relatively unimportant error; for clearly this should be treated as a criminal proceeding rather than a civil matter. (People v. … On the other hand, it seems unreasonable to impute to the Legislature an intent to invest a trial court with plenary power to dismiss an action upon the pleadings and enter a final judgment immune from review.

Benson v. Kwikset Corp.

62 Cal. Rptr. 3d 284 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 26, 2007

" established. ( Tobe v. … This is too well established in too many different contexts to be doubted....

Regents v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal · Jan 14, 2014

that the files “(1) qualify as ‘public records’ and (2) were in the possession” of the city. … “As to the Board, to prevail PMSA must establish that the files (1) qualify as public records and (2) were in the possession of the Board. [Citation.]

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."

Security Data, Inc. v. County of Contra Costa

145 Cal. App. 3d 108 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 20, 1983

. *115 The defense also called David Nitchman and Jerry Underwood, both of whom qualified as experts in the “data processing field.” … In the present case, the trial court clearly found that the use of the computer components was not associated with the “general” purpose and use of the building in which they were installed.

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.