guiding principle in California

2025See also Arvizu, at pp. 274–278.) The guiding principle in determining the propriety of an investigatory detention is “the reasonableness in all the circumstances of 8 the particular governmental invasion of a citizen’s personal security.” (Terry v. State of Ohio (1968) 392 U.S. 1, 19 .) Dilelio testified at the hearing on the suppression motion that deputies had “received a prowler call.” The informant caller described a Hispanic woman wearing a colored shirt and dark blue pants riding a bicycle away from the residence.

2022“The guiding principle in determining the propriety of an investigatory detention is ‘the reasonableness in all the circumstances of the particular governmental invasion of a citizen’s personal security.’ ([Terry], supra, 392 U.S. at p. 19 ; see In re Tony C.[ (1978)] 21 Cal.3d [888,] 892.)” (People v. Wells (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1078, 1083 .) “[I]n determining whether the seizure and search were ‘unreasonable’ our inquiry is a dual one--whether the officer’s action was justified at its inception, and whether it was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference

2023Higgins claims that the “detention of the Ross vehicle was not based upon facts, but only a hunch.” “[A]n officer may stop and detain a motorist on reasonable suspicion that the driver has violated the law. [Citations.] The guiding principle in determining the propriety of an investigatory detention is ‘the reasonableness in all the circumstances of the particular governmental invasion of a citizen’s personal security.’ [Citations.] In making our determination, we examine ‘the totality of the circumstances’ in each case.” (People v. Wells (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1078, 1082-1083 .) “To justify an inv

2019"The touchstone of analyzing a detention, or for that matter any Fourth Amendment issue, is reasonableness." ( People v. Foranyic (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 186 , 188, 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 804 .) "The guiding principle, as in all issues arising under the Fourth Amendment and under the California Constitution [citations], is 'the reasonableness in all the circumstances of the *628 particular governmental invasion of a citizen's personal security.' [Citation.]" ( In re Tony C. (1978) 21 Cal.3d 888 , 892, 148 Cal.Rptr. 366 , 582 P.2d 957 .) That standard is of particular importance when considering the conc

2024When deciding a petition for a DVRO, “the court has broad discretion also to ‘make an order for the custody of a child . . . that seems necessary or proper.’” (Celia S. v. Hugo H. (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 655, 661 (Celia S.), quoting § 3022.) “The guiding principle for the court in making any custody or visitation order is that the order must be in the child’s best interest.” (Id. at p. 661, citing §§ 3011, 3020, 3040.) “[S]ection 3044 establishes a rebuttable presumption that awarding physical or legal custody to a parent who has committed domestic violence is detrimental to a child’s best intere

2024In ruling on a request for a domestic violence restraining order, the court also has broad discretion to “make an order for the custody of a child . . . that seems necessary or proper.” (§ 3022; see Celia S. v. Hugo H. (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 655, 661 .) “The guiding principle for the court in making any custody or visitation order is that the order must be in the child’s best interest.” (Celia S. v. Hugo H., at p. 661.) Here, the record reflects that, in granting the restraining order against Wallens, the trial court limited Wallens’s contact with X.W. to supervised visits twice per month for th

2023Higgins claims that the “detention of the Ross vehicle was not based upon facts, but only a hunch.” “[A]n officer may stop and detain a motorist on reasonable suspicion that the driver has violated the law. [Citations.] The guiding principle in determining the propriety of an investigatory detention is ‘the reasonableness in all the circumstances of the particular governmental invasion of a citizen’s personal security.’ [Citations.] In making our determination, we examine ‘the totality of the circumstances’ in each case.” (People v. Wells (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1078, 1082-1083 .) “To justify an inv

2022“The guiding principle in determining the propriety of an investigatory detention is ‘the reasonableness in all the circumstances of the particular governmental invasion of a citizen’s personal security.’ ([Terry], supra, 392 U.S. at p. 19 ; see In re Tony C.[ (1978)] 21 Cal.3d [888,] 892.)” (People v. Wells (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1078, 1083 .) “[I]n determining whether the seizure and search were ‘unreasonable’ our inquiry is a dual one--whether the officer’s action was justified at its inception, and whether it was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference

2025Rev. 561 , 576–585.) 7 judgment in favor of one alleged tortfeasor, Goode, would preclude the City, as another alleged tortfeasor with an adverse interest to Goode, from seeking to attribute fault to Goode. (§ 437c, subd. (l).) In our view, prohibiting a defendant with an interest adverse to that of another defendant from opposing a motion for summary judgment would run afoul of “the guiding principle of deciding cases on their merits rather than on procedural deficiencies.” (Bahl, supra, 89 Cal.App.4th at p. 398 ; Thatcher v. Lucky Stores, Inc., supra, 79 Cal.App.4th at p. 1085 .) Whether suc

2021(See, e.g., Bahl v. Bank of America (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 389, 398 [concluding the court abused its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s request for a continuance of the defendant’s summary 20 judgment motion in order to conduct additional discovery, reasoning a court “must abide by the guiding principle of deciding cases on their merits rather than on procedural deficiencies” and “[w]hen the two policies collide head-on, the strong public policy favoring disposition on the merits outweighs the competing policy favoring judicial efficiency.”].)7 III.

2025Practices Com. (1995) 11 Cal.4th 607, 615 (Kopp); accord, Legislature of the State of California v. Padilla (2020) 9 Cal.5th 867, 875 (Padilla).) As to severability, “[t]he cases prescribe three criteria for severability: the invalid provision must be grammatically, functionally, and volitionally separable.” (Calfarm Ins.

2025Practices Com. (1995) 11 Cal.4th 607, 615 (Kopp); accord, Legislature of the State of California v. Padilla (2020) 9 Cal.5th 867, 875 (Padilla).) As to severability, “[t]he cases prescribe three criteria for severability: the invalid provision must be grammatically, functionally, and volitionally separable.” (Calfarm Ins.

2025Rev. 561 , 576–585.) 7 judgment in favor of one alleged tortfeasor, Goode, would preclude the City, as another alleged tortfeasor with an adverse interest to Goode, from seeking to attribute fault to Goode. (§ 437c, subd. (l).) In our view, prohibiting a defendant with an interest adverse to that of another defendant from opposing a motion for summary judgment would run afoul of “the guiding principle of deciding cases on their merits rather than on procedural deficiencies.” (Bahl, supra, 89 Cal.App.4th at p. 398 ; Thatcher v. Lucky Stores, Inc., supra, 79 Cal.App.4th at p. 1085 .) Whether suc

2004On the other hand, they must abide by the guiding principle of deciding cases on their merits rather than on procedural deficiencies. ( Thatcher v. Lucky Stores, Inc. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1081, 1085 , 94 Cal.Rptr.2d 575 .) Such decisions must be made in an atmosphere of substantial justice.

2016The trial court denied the motion. “[A]n officer may stop and detain a motorist on reasonable suspicion that the driver has violated the law. [Citations.] The guiding principle in determining the propriety of an investigatory detention is ‘the reasonableness in all the circumstances of the particular governmental invasion of a citizen’s personal security.’ [Citations.] In making our determination, we examine ‘the totality of the circumstances’ in each case. [Citations.]” (People v. Wells (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1078, 1082-1083 .) An ordinary traffic stop is treated as a detention and is reasonable u

2013In determining whether, on the facts so found, the search or seizure was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, we exercise our independent judgment. [Citations.]’ [Citation.]” (People v. Weaver (2001) 26 Cal.4th 876, 924 .) “[A]n officer may stop and detain a motorist on reasonable suspicion that the driver has violated the law. [Citations.] The guiding principle in determining the propriety of an investigatory detention is ‘the reasonableness in all the circumstances of the particular governmental invasion of a citizen’s personal security.’ [Citations.] In making our determination, we examin

2019"The touchstone of analyzing a detention, or for that matter any Fourth Amendment issue, is reasonableness." ( People v. Foranyic (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 186 , 188, 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 804 .) "The guiding principle, as in all issues arising under the Fourth Amendment and under the California Constitution [citations], is 'the reasonableness in all the circumstances of the *628 particular governmental invasion of a citizen's personal security.' [Citation.]" ( In re Tony C. (1978) 21 Cal.3d 888 , 892, 148 Cal.Rptr. 366 , 582 P.2d 957 .) That standard is of particular importance when considering the conc

2019"The touchstone of analyzing a detention, or for that matter any Fourth Amendment issue, is reasonableness." ( People v. Foranyic (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 186 , 188, 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 804 .) "The guiding principle, as in all issues arising under the Fourth Amendment and under the California Constitution [citations], is 'the reasonableness in all the circumstances of the *628 particular governmental invasion of a citizen's personal security.' [Citation.]" ( In re Tony C. (1978) 21 Cal.3d 888 , 892, 148 Cal.Rptr. 366 , 582 P.2d 957 .) That standard is of particular importance when considering the conc

2016“Instead, the guiding principle in applying the anti-SLAPP statute to a mixed cause of action case is that ‘a plaintiff cannot frustrate the purposes of the SLAPP statute through a pleading tactic of combining allegations of protected and nonprotected activity under the label of one “cause of action.” ’ (Fox Searchlight Pictures, Inc. v. Paladino (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 294, 308 [ 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 906 ].” (Cho, at p. 527.) 7 *388 Clio concluded: “It would make little sense if the anti-SLAPP law could be defeated by a pleading, such as the one in this case, in which several claims are combined int

2016“Instead, the guiding principle in applying the anti-SLAPP statute to a mixed cause of action case is that ‘a plaintiff cannot frustrate the purposes of the SLAPP statute through a pleading tactic of combining allegations of protected and nonprotected activity under the label of one “cause of action.” ’ (Fox Searchlight Pictures, Inc. v. Paladino (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 294, 308 [ 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 906 ].” (Cho, at p. 527.) 7 *388 Clio concluded: “It would make little sense if the anti-SLAPP law could be defeated by a pleading, such as the one in this case, in which several claims are combined int

2016As the high court stated in United States v. Virginia Electric Co. (1961) 365 U.S. 624 , 633: ―The guiding principle of just compensation is reimbursement to the owner for the property interest taken. ‗He is entitled to be put in as good a position pecuniarily as if his property had not been taken.

2016As the high court stated in U. S. v. Virginia Electric Co. (1961) 365 U.S. 624, 633 [ 5 L.Ed.2d 838 , 81 S.Ct. 784 ]: “The guiding principle of just compensation is reimbursement to the owner for the property interest taken. ‘He is entitled to be put in as good a position pecuniarily as if his property had not been taken.

1963In Kraut v. Cornell (1959) 175 Cal.App.2d 528, 531 [ 346 P.2d 438 ], it is stated: “Plaintiff’s position is that ‘the damages awarded are inadequate as a matter of law. ’ The guiding principle in the instant matter is aptly stated in Qersich v. Shilling (1950) 97 Cal.App.2d 641 [ 218 P.2d 583 ].

1963In Kraut v. Cornell (1959) 175 Cal.App.2d 528, 531 [ 346 P.2d 438 ], it is stated: “Plaintiff’s position is that ‘the damages awarded are inadequate as a matter of law. ’ The guiding principle in the instant matter is aptly stated in Qersich v. Shilling (1950) 97 Cal.App.2d 641 [ 218 P.2d 583 ].

2025Practices Com. (1995) 11 Cal.4th 607, 615 (Kopp); accord, Legislature of the State of California v. Padilla (2020) 9 Cal.5th 867, 875 (Padilla).) As to severability, “[t]he cases prescribe three criteria for severability: the invalid provision must be grammatically, functionally, and volitionally separable.” (Calfarm Ins.

2025Practices Com. (1995) 11 Cal.4th 607, 615 (Kopp); accord, Legislature of the State of California v. Padilla (2020) 9 Cal.5th 867, 875 (Padilla).) As to severability, “[t]he cases prescribe three criteria for severability: the invalid provision must be grammatically, functionally, and volitionally separable.” (Calfarm Ins.

2022Code, § 21102, subd. (a); Title Ins. & Trust Co. v. Duffill (1923) 191 Cal. 629, 642 [“In seeking the true construction of a declaration of trust, the guiding principle must be the intention of the settlor—his intention as expressed.

1970Not, What did he intend to say? but, What did he intend by what he did say? must be the test.” (Title Ins. & Trust Co. v. Duffill, 191 Cal. 629, 642 [ 218 P. 14 ].) The statement made by Edward Levine in 1967 does not purport to explain what he meant by the term “personal representatives” in the trust instrument he signed in 1964.

2024On the other hand, they must abide by the guiding principle of deciding cases on their merits rather than on procedural deficiencies.’ [Citation.]” (Oliveros, supra, 120 Cal.App.4th at p. 1395 .) The court then stated, “Here, the record is devoid of the balancing of these competing interests.” (Ibid.) “[T]he trial court did not consider all of the facts and circumstances relevant to a ruling on the County’s request for a continuance, nor the specific factors enumerated in [former] revised rule 375(d) [(now rule 3.1332)] or section 9 of the Standards for Judicial Administration.” (Oliveros, at

2023When the two policies collide head-on, the strong public policy favoring disposition on the merits outweighs the competing policy favoring judicial efficiency. [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (Oliveros v. County of Los Angeles (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1389, 1395 (Oliveros).) Oliveros was a medical malpractice case in which the trial court denied an unopposed request for a continuance where the request was made because, unexpectedly and through no fault of his own, the attorney for the county was engaged in another trial. ( Oliveros, supra, 120 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1393-1394.) The trial court had granted

2021(People v. Castaneda (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1222, 1227 .) “[T]he ‘ “reasonableness in all the circumstances of the particular governmental invasion of a citizen’s personal security” ’ is the guiding principle.” (People v. Grant (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 1451, 1458 .) 1.

1995(See People v. Miranda (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 917, 922 [ 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 785 ].) We emphasize “ ‘ “the reasonableness in all the circumstances of the particular governmental invasion of a citizen’s personal security” ’ is the guiding principle. . . .” (People v. Grant (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 1451, 1458 [ 266 Cal.Rptr. 587 ].) An officer has every right to talk to anyone he encounters while regularly performing his duties, such as investigating illegal parking (People v. Dickey (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 952, 954-955 [ 27 Cal.Rptr.2d 44 ]) or cars parked in lots late at night (People v. Sandoval (1985)

2019"The touchstone of analyzing a detention, or for that matter any Fourth Amendment issue, is reasonableness." ( People v. Foranyic (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 186 , 188, 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 804 .) "The guiding principle, as in all issues arising under the Fourth Amendment and under the California Constitution [citations], is 'the reasonableness in all the circumstances of the *628 particular governmental invasion of a citizen's personal security.' [Citation.]" ( In re Tony C. (1978) 21 Cal.3d 888 , 892, 148 Cal.Rptr. 366 , 582 P.2d 957 .) That standard is of particular importance when considering the conc

2019"The touchstone of analyzing a detention, or for that matter any Fourth Amendment issue, is reasonableness." ( People v. Foranyic (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 186 , 188, 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 804 .) "The guiding principle, as in all issues arising under the Fourth Amendment and under the California Constitution [citations], is 'the reasonableness in all the circumstances of the *628 particular governmental invasion of a citizen's personal security.' [Citation.]" ( In re Tony C. (1978) 21 Cal.3d 888 , 892, 148 Cal.Rptr. 366 , 582 P.2d 957 .) That standard is of particular importance when considering the conc

2024“While this court will not condone unconstitutional variances in the statutory consequences of our criminal laws,” rational basis review requires us to extend substantial respect to the Legislature’s judgments, for “ ‘ “ ‘[o]nly by faithful adherence to this guiding principle of judicial review of legislation is it possible to preserve to the legislative branch its rightful independence and its ability to function.’ ” ’ ” (Johnson, supra, 60 Cal.4th at p. 889 .) Our legislative bodies may continue to consider the issue and how to balance concerns about the severity of certain crimes with the o

2016(Heller [v. Doe (1993) 509 U.S. 312 ,] 320 [ 125 L.Ed.2d 257 , 113 S.Ct. 2637 ]; see [People v.] Turnage[ (2012) 55 Cal.4th 62 ,] 75 [ 144 Cal.Rptr.3d 489 , 281 P.3d 464 ].) If a plausible basis exists for the disparity, courts may not second-guess its ‘ “wisdom, fairness, or logic,” ’ ” and “the Legislature is afforded considerable latitude in defining and setting the consequences of criminal offenses.” ( Johnson, supra, 60 Cal.4th at pp. 881, 887.) Although courts “will not condone unconstitutional variances in the statutory consequences of our criminal laws, rational basis review requires t

2019"The touchstone of analyzing a detention, or for that matter any Fourth Amendment issue, is reasonableness." ( People v. Foranyic (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 186 , 188, 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 804 .) "The guiding principle, as in all issues arising under the Fourth Amendment and under the California Constitution [citations], is 'the reasonableness in all the circumstances of the *628 particular governmental invasion of a citizen's personal security.' [Citation.]" ( In re Tony C. (1978) 21 Cal.3d 888 , 892, 148 Cal.Rptr. 366 , 582 P.2d 957 .) That standard is of particular importance when considering the conc

2019"The touchstone of analyzing a detention, or for that matter any Fourth Amendment issue, is reasonableness." ( People v. Foranyic (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 186 , 188, 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 804 .) "The guiding principle, as in all issues arising under the Fourth Amendment and under the California Constitution [citations], is 'the reasonableness in all the circumstances of the *628 particular governmental invasion of a citizen's personal security.' [Citation.]" ( In re Tony C. (1978) 21 Cal.3d 888 , 892, 148 Cal.Rptr. 366 , 582 P.2d 957 .) That standard is of particular importance when considering the conc