often rule in California

1996The words of the statute must be construed in context, keeping in mind the statutory purpose, and statutes or statutory sections relating to the same subject must be harmonized, both internally and with each other, to the extent possible. [Citations.] Where uncertainty exists consideration should be given to the consequences [which] will flow from a particular interpretation. [Citation.] Both the legislative history of the statute and the wider historical circumstances of its enactment may be considered in ascertaining the legislative intent. [Citations.]" (Dyna-Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment &

1996The words of the statute must be construed in context, keeping in mind the statutory purpose, and statutes or statutory sections relating to the same subject must be harmonized, both internally and with each other, to the extent possible. [Citations.] Where uncertainty exists consideration should be given to the consequences [which] will flow from a particular interpretation. [Citation.] Both the legislative history of the statute and the wider historical circumstances of its enactment may be considered in ascertaining the legislative intent. [Citations.]" (Dyna-Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment &

1996The words of the statute must be construed in context, keeping in mind the statutory purpose, and statutes or statutory sections relating to the same subject must be harmonized, both internally and with each other, to the extent possible. [Citations.] Where uncertainty exists consideration should be given to the consequences [which] will flow from a particular interpretation. [Citation.] Both the legislative history of the statute and the wider historical circumstances of its enactment may be considered in ascertaining the legislative intent. [Citations.]" ( Dyna-Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment &

1996The words of the statute must be construed in context, keeping in mind the statutory purpose, and statutes or statutory sections relating to the same subject must be harmonized, both internally and with each other, to the extent possible. [Citations.] Where uncertainty exists consideration should be given to the consequences [which] will flow from a particular interpretation. [Citation.] Both the legislative history of the statute and the wider historical circumstances of its enactment may be considered in ascertaining the legislative intent. [Citations.]" ( Dyna-Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment &

1996The words of the statute must be construed in context, keeping in mind the statutory purpose, and statutes or statutory sections relating to the same subject must be harmonized, both internally and with each other, to the extent possible. [Citations.] Where uncertainty exists consideration should be given to the consequences [which] will flow from a particular interpretation. [Citation.] Both the legislative history of the statute and the wider historical circumstances of its enactment may be considered in ascertaining the legislative intent. [Citations.]" ( Dyna-Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment &

1996The words of the statute must be construed in context, keeping in mind the statutory purpose, and statutes or statutory sections relating to the same subject must be harmonized, both internally and with each other, to the extent possible. [Citations.] Where uncertainty exists consideration should be given to the consequences [which] will flow from a particular interpretation. [Citation.] Both the legislative history of the statute and the wider historical circumstances of its enactment may be considered in ascertaining the legislative intent. [Citations.]" ( Dyna-Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment &

1996The words of the statute must be construed in context, keeping in mind the statutory purpose, and statutes or statutory sections relating to the same subject must be harmonized, both internally and with each other, to the extent possible. [Citations.] Where uncertainty exists consideration should be given to the consequences [which] will flow from a particular interpretation. [Citation.] Both the legislative history of the statute and the wider historical circumstances of its enactment may be considered in ascertaining the legislative intent. [Citations.]" (Dyna-Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment &

1996The words of the statute must be construed in context, keeping in mind the statutory purpose, and statutes or statutory sections relating to the same subject must be harmonized, both internally and with each other, to the extent possible. [Citations.] Where uncertainty exists consideration should be given to the consequences [which] will flow from a particular interpretation. [Citation.] Both the legislative history of the statute and the wider historical circumstances of its enactment may be considered in ascertaining the legislative intent. [Citations.]" (Dyna-Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment &

1948It is in accord with the often stated principle that ‘the defendant is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt, whether it arise out of a question of fact, or as to the true interpretation of words or the construction of language used in a statute.’ (People v. Ralph (1944), 24 Cal.2d 575, 581 [ 150 P.2d 401 ], and cases there cited.) ” While it might be urged that the crime defined by section 476 is not a lesser offense than that defined in section 470, the Legislature has apparently considered the latter as a lesser offense, else it would have included it within section 644; and if

1946It is in accord with the often stated principle that "the defendant is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt, whether it arise out of a question of fact, or as to the true interpretation of words or the construction of language used in a statute." (People v. Ralph (1944), 24 Cal.2d 575, 581 [ 150 P.2d 401 ], and cases there cited.) *279 It is, of course, true that after a trial of conflicting evidence and a verdict against a defendant, every reasonable inference of which the evidence admits in favor of the verdict, and, hence, against the defendant, will be assumed by a reviewing c

2019By this approach we keep faith with the often stated rule expressed in [ Wilshire ] that when a statute requires a court to exercise its jurisdiction in a certain way or under certain restrictions, acts to the contrary or beyond those limits are in excess of the court's statutorily imposed jurisdiction." ( Surety , at p. 356, 195 Cal.Rptr. 876 .) "Presumptively the clerk [in Wilshire ] had entered the order in the permanent minutes," while "[p]resumptively the clerk [in Amwest ] had not yet entered in the minutes the order declaring the bond forfeited." ( Surety , at p. 356, 195 Cal.Rptr. 876

2019By this approach we keep faith with the often stated rule expressed in [ Wilshire ] that when a statute requires a court to exercise its jurisdiction in a certain way or under certain restrictions, acts to the contrary or beyond those limits are in excess of the court's statutorily imposed jurisdiction." ( Surety , at p. 356, 195 Cal.Rptr. 876 .) "Presumptively the clerk [in Wilshire ] had entered the order in the permanent minutes," while "[p]resumptively the clerk [in Amwest ] had not yet entered in the minutes the order declaring the bond forfeited." ( Surety , at p. 356, 195 Cal.Rptr. 876

2002This often requires an inquiry into statutory construction." ( Worth v. Universal Pictures, Inc. (1997) 5 F.Supp.2d 816, 820 .) When interpreting the meaning of a statute, we look first to the statutory language. ( Kane v. Hurley *729 (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 859, 862 , 35 Cal. Rptr.2d 809 .) The Act expressly preempts state law causes of action that protect rights equivalent to the exclusive rights protected by federal copyright law.

2002This often requires an inquiry into statutory construction." ( Worth v. Universal Pictures, Inc. (1997) 5 F.Supp.2d 816, 820 .) When interpreting the meaning of a statute, we look first to the statutory language. ( Kane v. Hurley *729 (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 859, 862 , 35 Cal. Rptr.2d 809 .) The Act expressly preempts state law causes of action that protect rights equivalent to the exclusive rights protected by federal copyright law.

1980(People v. Bradley (1969) 1 Cal.3d 80, 84 [ 81 Cal.Rptr. 457 , 460 P.2d 129 ]; People v. Edwards (1969) 71 Cal.2d 1096, 1100 [ 80 Cal.Rptr. 633 , 458 P.2d 713 ]; Dean v. Superior Court (1973) 35 Cal.App.3d 112, 116 [ 110 Cal.Rptr. 585 ].) While the constitutional privilege of protecting one’s privacy covers not only the ground, but may extend also into the airspace, it is absolutely essential that the person affected exhibit a reasonable expectation (as opposed to mere subjective, personal desire) that the activity in question be so protected.

1980(People v. Bradley (1969) 1 Cal.3d 80, 84 [ 81 Cal.Rptr. 457 , 460 P.2d 129 ]; People v. Edwards (1969) 71 Cal.2d 1096, 1100 [ 80 Cal.Rptr. 633 , 458 P.2d 713 ]; Dean v. Superior Court (1973) 35 Cal.App.3d 112, 116 [ 110 Cal.Rptr. 585 ].) While the constitutional privilege of protecting one’s privacy covers not only the ground, but may extend also into the airspace, it is absolutely essential that the person affected exhibit a reasonable expectation (as opposed to mere subjective, personal desire) that the activity in question be so protected.

1980(People v. Bradley (1969) 1 Cal.3d 80, 84 [ 81 Cal.Rptr. 457 , 460 P.2d 129 ]; People v. Edwards (1969) 71 Cal.2d 1096, 1100 [ 80 Cal.Rptr. 633 , 458 P.2d 713 ]; Dean v. Superior Court (1973) 35 Cal.App.3d 112, 116 [ 110 Cal.Rptr. 585 ].) While the constitutional privilege of protecting one’s privacy covers not only the ground, but may extend also into the airspace, it is absolutely essential that the person affected exhibit a reasonable expectation (as opposed to mere subjective, personal desire) that the activity in question be so protected.

1980(People v. Bradley (1969) 1 Cal.3d 80, 84 [ 81 Cal.Rptr. 457 , 460 P.2d 129 ]; People v. Edwards (1969) 71 Cal.2d 1096, 1100 [ 80 Cal.Rptr. 633 , 458 P.2d 713 ]; Dean v. Superior Court (1973) 35 Cal.App.3d 112, 116 [ 110 Cal.Rptr. 585 ].) While the constitutional privilege of protecting one’s privacy covers not only the ground, but may extend also into the airspace, it is absolutely essential that the person affected exhibit a reasonable expectation (as opposed to mere subjective, personal desire) that the activity in question be so protected.

1980(People v. Bradley (1969) 1 Cal.3d 80, 84 [ 81 Cal.Rptr. 457 , 460 P.2d 129 ]; People v. Edwards (1969) 71 Cal.2d 1096, 1100 [ 80 Cal.Rptr. 633 , 458 P.2d 713 ]; Dean v. Superior Court (1973) 35 Cal.App.3d 112, 116 [ 110 Cal.Rptr. 585 ].) While the constitutional privilege of protecting one’s privacy covers not only the ground, but may extend also into the airspace, it is absolutely essential that the person affected exhibit a reasonable expectation (as opposed to mere subjective, personal desire) that the activity in question be so protected.

1980(People v. Bradley (1969) 1 Cal.3d 80, 84 [ 81 Cal.Rptr. 457 , 460 P.2d 129 ]; People v. Edwards (1969) 71 Cal.2d 1096, 1100 [ 80 Cal.Rptr. 633 , 458 P.2d 713 ]; Dean v. Superior Court (1973) 35 Cal.App.3d 112, 116 [ 110 Cal.Rptr. 585 ].) While the constitutional privilege of protecting one’s privacy covers not only the ground, but may extend also into the airspace, it is absolutely essential that the person affected exhibit a reasonable expectation (as opposed to mere subjective, personal desire) that the activity in question be so protected.

1977Appellant’s contention, that the trial court’s finding of lack of promise as to payment of any future bonus is not supported by the evidence, loses sight of the often stated rule that in reviewing the sufficiency of the proof we must disregard conflicting evidence and examine solely the question whether there is any substantial evidence to sustain the challenged finding (Primm v. Primm (1956) 46 Cal.2d 690, 693 [ 299 P.2d 231 ]).

1977Appellant’s contention, that the trial court’s finding of lack of promise as to payment of any future bonus is not supported by the evidence, loses sight of the often stated rule that in reviewing the sufficiency of the proof we must disregard conflicting evidence and examine solely the question whether there is any substantial evidence to sustain the challenged finding (Primm v. Primm (1956) 46 Cal.2d 690, 693 [ 299 P.2d 231 ]).

1960(DePuy v. Sullivan (1959), 168 Cal.App.2d 292, 293 [ 335 P.2d 750 ] ; Copprell v. Copprell (1948), 87 Cal.App.2d 4 [ 195 P.2d 868 ] ; Cox v. Cox (1947), 82 Cal.App.2d 867, 869 [ 187 P.2d 23 ].) The husband asserts it was error for the trial court to award the wife costs and attorney’s fees pending appeal.

1960(DePuy v. Sullivan (1959), 168 Cal.App.2d 292, 293 [ 335 P.2d 750 ] ; Copprell v. Copprell (1948), 87 Cal.App.2d 4 [ 195 P.2d 868 ] ; Cox v. Cox (1947), 82 Cal.App.2d 867, 869 [ 187 P.2d 23 ].) The husband asserts it was error for the trial court to award the wife costs and attorney’s fees pending appeal.

1960(DePuy v. Sullivan (1959), 168 Cal.App.2d 292, 293 [ 335 P.2d 750 ] ; Copprell v. Copprell (1948), 87 Cal.App.2d 4 [ 195 P.2d 868 ] ; Cox v. Cox (1947), 82 Cal.App.2d 867, 869 [ 187 P.2d 23 ].) The husband asserts it was error for the trial court to award the wife costs and attorney’s fees pending appeal.

1960(DePuy v. Sullivan (1959), 168 Cal.App.2d 292, 293 [ 335 P.2d 750 ] ; Copprell v. Copprell (1948), 87 Cal.App.2d 4 [ 195 P.2d 868 ] ; Cox v. Cox (1947), 82 Cal.App.2d 867, 869 [ 187 P.2d 23 ].) The husband asserts it was error for the trial court to award the wife costs and attorney’s fees pending appeal.

1951(Feraut v. City of Sacramento, 204 Cal. 687, 693 [ 269 P. 537 ]; Zahn v. Board of Public Works, 195 Cal. 497, 512 [ 234 P. 388 ].) The same is true of the allegation that no use is being made of the property on the side of Acalanes Road on which appellant’s property is situated for over one mile to the north, since “one of the bases for zoning regulations is the guidance of future development for the protection of residential areas.” (Lockard v. City of Los Angeles, 33 Cal.2d 453, 466 [ 202 P.2d 38 , 7 A.L.R.2d 990 ]; Sunny Slope Water Co. v. City of Pasadena, 1 Cal.2d 87, 93 [ 33 P.2d 672 ].)

1951(Feraut v. City of Sacramento, 204 Cal. 687, 693 [ 269 P. 537 ]; Zahn v. Board of Public Works, 195 Cal. 497, 512 [ 234 P. 388 ].) The same is true of the allegation that no use is being made of the property on the side of Acalanes Road on which appellant’s property is situated for over one mile to the north, since “one of the bases for zoning regulations is the guidance of future development for the protection of residential areas.” (Lockard v. City of Los Angeles, 33 Cal.2d 453, 466 [ 202 P.2d 38 , 7 A.L.R.2d 990 ]; Sunny Slope Water Co. v. City of Pasadena, 1 Cal.2d 87, 93 [ 33 P.2d 672 ].)

1951(Feraut v. City of Sacramento, 204 Cal. 687, 693 [ 269 P. 537 ]; Zahn v. Board of Public Works, 195 Cal. 497, 512 [ 234 P. 388 ].) The same is true of the allegation that no use is being made of the property on the side of Acalanes Road on which appellant’s property is situated for over one mile to the north, since “one of the bases for zoning regulations is the guidance of future development for the protection of residential areas.” (Lockard v. City of Los Angeles, 33 Cal.2d 453, 466 [ 202 P.2d 38 , 7 A.L.R.2d 990 ]; Sunny Slope Water Co. v. City of Pasadena, 1 Cal.2d 87, 93 [ 33 P.2d 672 ].)

1951(Feraut v. City of Sacramento, 204 Cal. 687, 693 [ 269 P. 537 ]; Zahn v. Board of Public Works, 195 Cal. 497, 512 [ 234 P. 388 ].) The same is true of the allegation that no use is being made of the property on the side of Acalanes Road on which appellant’s property is situated for over one mile to the north, since “one of the bases for zoning regulations is the guidance of future development for the protection of residential areas.” (Lockard v. City of Los Angeles, 33 Cal.2d 453, 466 [ 202 P.2d 38 , 7 A.L.R.2d 990 ]; Sunny Slope Water Co. v. City of Pasadena, 1 Cal.2d 87, 93 [ 33 P.2d 672 ].)

1951(Feraut v. City of Sacramento, 204 Cal. 687, 693 [ 269 P. 537 ]; Zahn v. Board of Public Works, 195 Cal. 497, 512 [ 234 P. 388 ].) The same is true of the allegation that no use is being made of the property on the side of Acalanes Road on which appellant’s property is situated for over one mile to the north, since “one of the bases for zoning regulations is the guidance of future development for the protection of residential areas.” (Lockard v. City of Los Angeles, 33 Cal.2d 453, 466 [ 202 P.2d 38 , 7 A.L.R.2d 990 ]; Sunny Slope Water Co. v. City of Pasadena, 1 Cal.2d 87, 93 [ 33 P.2d 672 ].)

1951(Feraut v. City of Sacramento, 204 Cal. 687, 693 [ 269 P. 537 ]; Zahn v. Board of Public Works, 195 Cal. 497, 512 [ 234 P. 388 ].) The same is true of the allegation that no use is being made of the property on the side of Acalanes Road on which appellant’s property is situated for over one mile to the north, since “one of the bases for zoning regulations is the guidance of future development for the protection of residential areas.” (Lockard v. City of Los Angeles, 33 Cal.2d 453, 466 [ 202 P.2d 38 , 7 A.L.R.2d 990 ]; Sunny Slope Water Co. v. City of Pasadena, 1 Cal.2d 87, 93 [ 33 P.2d 672 ].)

1951(Feraut v. City of Sacramento, 204 Cal. 687, 693 [ 269 P. 537 ]; Zahn v. Board of Public Works, 195 Cal. 497, 512 [ 234 P. 388 ].) The same is true of the allegation that no use is being made of the property on the side of Acalanes Road on which appellant’s property is situated for over one mile to the north, since “one of the bases for zoning regulations is the guidance of future development for the protection of residential areas.” (Lockard v. City of Los Angeles, 33 Cal.2d 453, 466 [ 202 P.2d 38 , 7 A.L.R.2d 990 ]; Sunny Slope Water Co. v. City of Pasadena, 1 Cal.2d 87, 93 [ 33 P.2d 672 ].)

1951(Feraut v. City of Sacramento, 204 Cal. 687, 693 [ 269 P. 537 ]; Zahn v. Board of Public Works, 195 Cal. 497, 512 [ 234 P. 388 ].) The same is true of the allegation that no use is being made of the property on the side of Acalanes Road on which appellant’s property is situated for over one mile to the north, since “one of the bases for zoning regulations is the guidance of future development for the protection of residential areas.” (Lockard v. City of Los Angeles, 33 Cal.2d 453, 466 [ 202 P.2d 38 , 7 A.L.R.2d 990 ]; Sunny Slope Water Co. v. City of Pasadena, 1 Cal.2d 87, 93 [ 33 P.2d 672 ].)