conducts inquiry in California

2023(Baral, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 384 .) “The court does not weigh evidence or resolve conflicting factual claims.

2022(Baral, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 384 .) “The court does not weigh evidence or resolve conflicting factual claims.

2023Co. (2016) 63 Cal.4th 363 , 371–372.) “ ‘Evidence of a defendant’s financial condition is a legal precondition to the award of punitive damages. [Citation.] We examine the record to determine whether the challenged award rests upon substantial evidence. [Citations.] If it does not, and if the plaintiffs had a full and fair opportunity to make the requisite showing, the proper remedy is to reverse the award.’ ” 65 (Farmers & Merchants Trust Co. v. Vanetik (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 638 , 647–648.) “The ultimately proper level of punitive damages is an amount not so low that the defendant can absorb

2021Co. v. Campbell (2003) 538 U.S. 408, 418 (State Farm).) “A trial court conducts this inquiry in the 63 first instance; its application of the factors is subject to de novo review on appeal.” (Nickerson, supra, 63 Cal.4th at p. 372 .) The most important of the three guideposts is the reprehensibility of the defendant’s conduct.

2023(Alliance Mortgage, supra, 10 Cal.4th at p. 1241 .) The United States Supreme Court has developed “a set of substantive guideposts that reviewing courts must consider in evaluating the size of punitive damages awards: ‘(1) the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant’s misconduct; (2) the disparity between the actual or potential harm suffered by the plaintiff and the punitive damages award; and (3) the difference between the punitive damages awarded by the jury and the civil penalties authorized or imposed in comparable cases.’ [Citation.] A trial court conducts this inquiry in the first i

2023(Alliance Mortgage, supra, 10 Cal.4th at p. 1241 .) The United States Supreme Court has developed “a set of substantive guideposts that reviewing courts must consider in evaluating the size of punitive damages awards: ‘(1) the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant’s misconduct; (2) the disparity between the actual or potential harm suffered by the plaintiff and the punitive damages award; and (3) the difference between the punitive damages awarded by the jury and the civil penalties authorized or imposed in comparable cases.’ [Citation.] A trial court conducts this inquiry in the first i

2023Co. (2016) 63 Cal.4th 363 , 371–372.) “ ‘Evidence of a defendant’s financial condition is a legal precondition to the award of punitive damages. [Citation.] We examine the record to determine whether the challenged award rests upon substantial evidence. [Citations.] If it does not, and if the plaintiffs had a full and fair opportunity to make the requisite showing, the proper remedy is to reverse the award.’ ” 65 (Farmers & Merchants Trust Co. v. Vanetik (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 638 , 647–648.) “The ultimately proper level of punitive damages is an amount not so low that the defendant can absorb

2023Co. (2016) 63 Cal.4th 363 , 371–372.) “ ‘Evidence of a defendant’s financial condition is a legal precondition to the award of punitive damages. [Citation.] We examine the record to determine whether the challenged award rests upon substantial evidence. [Citations.] If it does not, and if the plaintiffs had a full and fair opportunity to make the requisite showing, the proper remedy is to reverse the award.’ ” 65 (Farmers & Merchants Trust Co. v. Vanetik (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 638 , 647–648.) “The ultimately proper level of punitive damages is an amount not so low that the defendant can absorb

2023Co. (2016) 63 Cal.4th 363 , 371–372.) “ ‘Evidence of a defendant’s financial condition is a legal precondition to the award of punitive damages. [Citation.] We examine the record to determine whether the challenged award rests upon substantial evidence. [Citations.] If it does not, and if the plaintiffs had a full and fair opportunity to make the requisite showing, the proper remedy is to reverse the award.’ ” 65 (Farmers & Merchants Trust Co. v. Vanetik (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 638 , 647–648.) “The ultimately proper level of punitive damages is an amount not so low that the defendant can absorb

2023Co. (2016) 63 Cal.4th 363 , 371–372.) “ ‘Evidence of a defendant’s financial condition is a legal precondition to the award of punitive damages. [Citation.] We examine the record to determine whether the challenged award rests upon substantial evidence. [Citations.] If it does not, and if the plaintiffs had a full and fair opportunity to make the requisite showing, the proper remedy is to reverse the award.’ ” 65 (Farmers & Merchants Trust Co. v. Vanetik (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 638 , 647–648.) “The ultimately proper level of punitive damages is an amount not so low that the defendant can absorb

2023Co. (2016) 63 Cal.4th 363 , 371–372.) “ ‘Evidence of a defendant’s financial condition is a legal precondition to the award of punitive damages. [Citation.] We examine the record to determine whether the challenged award rests upon substantial evidence. [Citations.] If it does not, and if the plaintiffs had a full and fair opportunity to make the requisite showing, the proper remedy is to reverse the award.’ ” 65 (Farmers & Merchants Trust Co. v. Vanetik (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 638 , 647–648.) “The ultimately proper level of punitive damages is an amount not so low that the defendant can absorb

2023Co. (2016) 63 Cal.4th 363 , 371–372.) “ ‘Evidence of a defendant’s financial condition is a legal precondition to the award of punitive damages. [Citation.] We examine the record to determine whether the challenged award rests upon substantial evidence. [Citations.] If it does not, and if the plaintiffs had a full and fair opportunity to make the requisite showing, the proper remedy is to reverse the award.’ ” 65 (Farmers & Merchants Trust Co. v. Vanetik (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 638 , 647–648.) “The ultimately proper level of punitive damages is an amount not so low that the defendant can absorb

2026(Ibid.) In order to qualify for a certificate of rehabilitation, the petitioner must have at least one felony conviction that was dismissed pursuant to section 1203.4 (§§ 4852.01, 4852.06), and the five-year minimum period of rehabilitation, commencing on the petitioner’s discharge from custody, must have expired. (§§ 4852.03, subd. (a), 4852.06.) A trial court conducts an inquiry into the petitioner’s conduct and character from the time of the underlying crimes through the time of the certificate of rehabilitation proceeding. (§§ 4852.1-4852.12; Ansell, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 887 ; People v.

2026(Ibid.) In order to qualify for a certificate of rehabilitation, the petitioner must have at least one felony conviction that was dismissed pursuant to section 1203.4 (§§ 4852.01, 4852.06), and the five-year minimum period of rehabilitation, commencing on the petitioner’s discharge from custody, must have expired. (§§ 4852.03, subd. (a), 4852.06.) A trial court conducts an inquiry into the petitioner’s conduct and character from the time of the underlying crimes through the time of the certificate of rehabilitation proceeding. (§§ 4852.1-4852.12; Ansell, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 887 ; People v.

2026(Ibid.) In order to qualify for a certificate of rehabilitation, the petitioner must have at least one felony conviction that was dismissed pursuant to section 1203.4 (§§ 4852.01, 4852.06), and the five-year minimum period of rehabilitation, commencing on the petitioner’s discharge from custody, must have expired. (§§ 4852.03, subd. (a), 4852.06.) A trial court conducts an inquiry into the petitioner’s conduct and character from the time of the underlying crimes through the time of the certificate of rehabilitation proceeding. (§§ 4852.1-4852.12; Ansell, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 887 ; People v.

2026(Ibid.) In order to qualify for a certificate of rehabilitation, the petitioner must have at least one felony conviction that was dismissed pursuant to section 1203.4 (§§ 4852.01, 4852.06), and the five-year minimum period of rehabilitation, commencing on the petitioner’s discharge from custody, must have expired. (§§ 4852.03, subd. (a), 4852.06.) A trial court conducts an inquiry into the petitioner’s conduct and character from the time of the underlying crimes through the time of the certificate of rehabilitation proceeding. (§§ 4852.1-4852.12; Ansell, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 887 ; People v.

2021(State Farm, supra, 538 U.S. at p. 419 .) “[P]unitive damages should only be awarded if the defendant’s culpability, after having paid compensatory damages, is so reprehensible as to warrant the imposition of further sanctions to achieve punishment or deterrence.” (Ibid.) Courts are to determine reprehensibility by considering five factors: “[whether] the harm caused was physical as opposed to economic; [whether] the tortious conduct evidenced an indifference to or a reckless disregard of the health or safety of others; [whether] the target of the conduct had financial vulnerability; [whether]

2021And even after the petitioner was warned that further assault would kill the independently of statute and may be exercised in criminal as well as in civil cases. [Citation.] The power is unaffected by the pendency of an appeal or a habeas corpus proceeding. [Citation.] The court may correct such errors on its own motion or upon the application of the parties.’” (People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185 , quoting In re Candelario (1970) 3 Cal.3d 702, 705 .) 6 victim, he continued to act with reckless indifference to human life.” The minute order documenting the hearing states in relevant p

2021And even after the petitioner was warned that further assault would kill the independently of statute and may be exercised in criminal as well as in civil cases. [Citation.] The power is unaffected by the pendency of an appeal or a habeas corpus proceeding. [Citation.] The court may correct such errors on its own motion or upon the application of the parties.’” (People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185 , quoting In re Candelario (1970) 3 Cal.3d 702, 705 .) 6 victim, he continued to act with reckless indifference to human life.” The minute order documenting the hearing states in relevant p

2020(People v. Castellano (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 485, 490 ; Santos, supra, 38 Cal.App.5th at p. 934 .) Here, appellant did not appear at the hearing his attorney had requested under Dueñas to modify the previously imposed fines and fees, apparently because he was on bench warrant status.

2020(People v. Castellano (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 485, 490 ; Santos, supra, 38 Cal.App.5th at p. 934 .) Here, appellant did not appear at the hearing his attorney had requested under Dueñas to modify the previously imposed fines and fees, apparently because he was on bench warrant status.

2020(People v. Castellano (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 485, 490 ; Santos, supra, 38 Cal.App.5th at p. 934 .) Here, appellant did not appear at the hearing his attorney had requested under Dueñas to modify the previously imposed fines and fees, apparently because he was on bench warrant status.

2016He posits that, if a committed person would not be dangerous while under supervision, then, under Foucha v. Louisiana, supra, 504 U.S. 71 , the person must be released regardless of whether the committed person has undergone or will undergo treatment.

2016He posits that, if a committed person would not be dangerous while under supervision, then, under Foucha v. Louisiana, supra, 504 U.S. 71 , the person must be released regardless of whether the committed person has undergone or will undergo treatment.

2016(People v. Taylor (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 1299, 1312 .) Upon a showing of good cause that a juror is unable to perform his or her duty, the trial court may discharge the juror at any time, including during deliberations. (§ 1089; People v. Lomax (2010) 49 Cal.4th 530, 588 (Lomax).) “When a court is informed of allegations which, if proven true, would constitute good cause for a juror’s removal, a 5 hearing is required.” (People v. Barnwell (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1038, 1051 (Barnwell); Lomax, supra, at p. 588 .) “If the trial court has good cause to doubt a juror’s ability to perform his duties, the co

2014(Tingley v. Times Mirror Co. (1907) 151 Cal. 1, 10-11 .) To conclude that the right to file an amended pleading without leave of court applies to an amended pleading that is filed after the court sustains a demurrer to the original pleading with leave to amend, as was the case here, requires that we conclude that the right to amend that expired upon the hearing of the first demurrer was revived by the filing of the amended pleading.

1996(Elysium, supra, 232 Cal.App.3d at p. 427 ; Vehicular Residents Assn. v. Agnos (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 996, 999 [ 272 Cal.Rptr. 216 ].) Under the traditional, rational relationship test, the court conducts an inquiry into the correspondence between the classification and the legislative goals.

1996(Elysium, supra, 232 Cal.App.3d at p. 427 .) A zoning ordinance may not rely on a classification whose relationship to an asserted goal is so attenuated as to render the distinction arbitrary or irrational.