combination factors in California

2016(Bonilla, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 343, fn. 13 .) Here, the court did not make factual findings regarding any of the stated reasons, and denied the motion with minimal comment, which indicates that it was not making a stage 12 In People v. Johnson (1989) 47 Cal.3d 1194, 1220 , our Supreme Court explained, “Trial lawyers recognize that it is a combination of factors rather than any single one which often leads to the exercise of a peremptory challenge.

2016(Bonilla, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 343, fn. 13 .) Here, the court did not make factual findings regarding any of the stated reasons, and denied the motion with minimal comment, which indicates that it was not making a stage 12 In People v. Johnson (1989) 47 Cal.3d 1194, 1220 , our Supreme Court explained, “Trial lawyers recognize that it is a combination of factors rather than any single one which often leads to the exercise of a peremptory challenge.

2021Because Mixon did not present a prima facie case of gender-based exclusion, the prosecutor was not obligated to 31 explain his reasons for dismissing these prospective jurors.18 (People v. Scott (2015) 61 Cal.4th 363, 387 [“a party exercising a strike thus has no obligation to articulate a reason until an inference of discrimination has been raised”].) F. Conclusion Our Supreme Court has recognized “‘that it is a combination of factors rather than any single one which often leads to the exercise of a peremptory challenge’; that ‘the particular combination or mix of jurors which a lawyer seeks

2021Because Mixon did not present a prima facie case of gender-based exclusion, the prosecutor was not obligated to 31 explain his reasons for dismissing these prospective jurors.18 (People v. Scott (2015) 61 Cal.4th 363, 387 [“a party exercising a strike thus has no obligation to articulate a reason until an inference of discrimination has been raised”].) F. Conclusion Our Supreme Court has recognized “‘that it is a combination of factors rather than any single one which often leads to the exercise of a peremptory challenge’; that ‘the particular combination or mix of jurors which a lawyer seeks

2018(See, e.g., Starkman v. Mann Theaters Corp. (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 1491, 1499 (Starkman); Pizarro, supra, 135 Cal.App.4th at p. 1176; Javorsky v. Western Athletic Clubs, Inc. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1386, 1402-1403 (Javorsky); see also Sargoy, supra, 4 Candelore rightly points out that the complaint alleges only that Tinder has publicly stated the budget constraints of its younger users were one among “ ‘a combination of factors’ ” that led it to adopt the chosen price points for “ ‘certain age demographics.’ ” We agree with his contention that the allegation concerning Tinder’s public statement

2018(See, e.g., Starkman v. Mann Theaters Corp. (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 1491, 1499 (Starkman); Pizarro, supra, 135 Cal.App.4th at p. 1176; Javorsky v. Western Athletic Clubs, Inc. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1386, 1402-1403 (Javorsky); see also Sargoy, supra, 4 Candelore rightly points out that the complaint alleges only that Tinder has publicly stated the budget constraints of its younger users were one among “ ‘a combination of factors’ ” that led it to adopt the chosen price points for “ ‘certain age demographics.’ ” We agree with his contention that the allegation concerning Tinder’s public statement

2016(Bonilla, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 343, fn. 13 .) Here, the court did not make factual findings regarding any of the stated reasons, and denied the motion with minimal comment, which indicates that it was not making a stage 12 In People v. Johnson (1989) 47 Cal.3d 1194, 1220 , our Supreme Court explained, “Trial lawyers recognize that it is a combination of factors rather than any single one which often leads to the exercise of a peremptory challenge.

2016(Bonilla, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 343, fn. 13 .) Here, the court did not make factual findings regarding any of the stated reasons, and denied the motion with minimal comment, which indicates that it was not making a stage 12 In People v. Johnson (1989) 47 Cal.3d 1194, 1220 , our Supreme Court explained, “Trial lawyers recognize that it is a combination of factors rather than any single one which often leads to the exercise of a peremptory challenge.

1983The principal cases are People v. Booker (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 654 [ 138 Cal.Rptr. 347 ]; People v. McCowan (1978) 85 Cal.App.3d 675 [ 149 Cal.Rptr. 611 ]; People v. Chen (1974) 37 Cal.App.3d 1046 [ 112 Cal.Rptr. 172 ], overruled on another point in People v. Jimenez (1978) 21 Cal.3d 595, 608 [ 147 Cal.Rptr. 172 , 580 P.2d 672 ]; *18 People v. Duren (1973) 9 Cal.3d 218 [ 107 Cal.Rptr. 157 , 507 P.2d 1365 ].” (In re Michael B. (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 790, 795 [ 178 Cal.Rptr. 291 ].) In the instant case, albeit not involving interrogation, the offenses were related; all counts charged robbery in vi

1983The principal cases are People v. Booker (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 654 [ 138 Cal.Rptr. 347 ]; People v. McCowan (1978) 85 Cal.App.3d 675 [ 149 Cal.Rptr. 611 ]; People v. Chen (1974) 37 Cal.App.3d 1046 [ 112 Cal.Rptr. 172 ], overruled on another point in People v. Jimenez (1978) 21 Cal.3d 595, 608 [ 147 Cal.Rptr. 172 , 580 P.2d 672 ]; *18 People v. Duren (1973) 9 Cal.3d 218 [ 107 Cal.Rptr. 157 , 507 P.2d 1365 ].” (In re Michael B. (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 790, 795 [ 178 Cal.Rptr. 291 ].) In the instant case, albeit not involving interrogation, the offenses were related; all counts charged robbery in vi

2024We believe that, for practical purposes, the instruction lowered the standard of proof for the determination of guilt.” (Id. at p. 1186.) Although the Cruz court acknowledged that the trial court had also given a proper jury instruction on the reasonable doubt standard, and that 37 “[o]ther instructions reiterated that the reasonable-doubt standard applied to the ultimate question of guilt” (Cruz, supra, 2 Cal.App.5th at p. 1184 ), it nevertheless found that “the combination of that instruction with the preponderance instruction for charged offenses produced a hopeless muddle.” (Id. at p. 1186

2016As our Supreme Court explained in People v. Aranda (2012) 55 Cal.4th 342, 365 [ 145 Cal.Rptr.3d 855 , 283 P.3d 632 ], an instructional error that has the effect of lowering the reasonable doubt standard for guilt is one of the few errors deemed “structural” and therefore reversible per se.

2014Myriad subtle nuances may shape it, including attitude, attention, interest, body language, facial expression and eye contact. ‘Even an inflection in the voice can make a difference in the meaning.’ ” (Ibid.) Moreover, we have recognized “that it is a combination of factors rather than any single one which often leads to the exercise of a peremptory challenge”; that “the particular combination or mix of jurors which a lawyer seeks may, and often does, change as certain jurors are removed or seated in the jury box”; and that “the same factors used in evaluating a juror may be given different we

2003In Wheeler , we said that we will ‘rely on the good judgment of the trial courts to distinguish bona fide reasons for such peremptories from sham excuses belatedly contrived to avoid admitting acts of group discrimination.’ (Wheeler, supra, 22 Cal.3d at p. 282 .) Similarly, the high court stated in Batson v. Kentucky, supra, that ‘the trial judge’s findings in the context under consideration here largely will turn on evaluation of credibility,’ and for that reason ‘a reviewing court ordinarily should give those findings great deference.’ ( 476 U.S. at p. 98, fn. 21 .)” (Fuentes, supra, 54 Cal.

2024(Minton v. Cavaney (1961) 56 Cal.2d 576, 581 .)” (NEC Electronics, supra, at p. 781 .) It is not enough that a chief executive officer and sole shareholder of a corporation is “aware” of the litigation.

1989(Minton v. Cavaney (1961) 56 Cal.2d 576, 581 [ 15 Cal.Rptr. 641 , 364 P.2d 473 ].) In this case, Hurt delegated responsibility for the claim to Finelli.

2022“Under the alter ego doctrine, ... when the corporate form is used to perpetrate a fraud, circumvent a statute, or accomplish some other wrongful or inequitable purpose, the courts will ignore the corporate entity and deem the corporation’s acts to be those of the persons ... actually controlling the corporation, in most instances the equitable owners. [Citations.] The alter ego doctrine prevents individuals ... from misusing the corporate laws by the device of a sham corporate entity formed for the purpose of committing fraud or other misdeeds.’ ” (Wolf Metals, supra, 4 Cal.App.5th at p. 703

2021As a result, we do not believe that there is substantial evidence to support the trial court’s conclusion that [the shareholder] controlled the action between [the plaintiff] and Ph.” (Id. at p. 781.) More recently, in Wolf Metals Inc. v. Rand Pacific Sales, Inc. (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 698, 708 (Wolf Metals), the court reversed an order amending a judgment under circumstances “materially identical” to Motores.

2015Our finding that Elias’s statements were involuntary is based on a combination of factors: (1) Elias’s youth, which rendered him “ ‘most susceptible to influence,’ Eddings [v. Oklahoma (1982) 455 U.S. 104, 115 [ 71 L.Ed.2d 1 , 102 S.Ct. 869 ]], and *587 ‘outside pressures,’ Roper [v. Simmons (2005) 543 U.S. 551, 569 [ 161 L.Ed.2d 1 , 125 S.Ct. 1183 ]].” (J.

2015Our finding that Elias’s statements were involuntary is based on a combination of factors: (1) Elias’s youth, which rendered him “ ‘most susceptible to influence,’ Eddings [v. Oklahoma (1982) 455 U.S. 104, 115 [ 71 L.Ed.2d 1 , 102 S.Ct. 869 ]], and *587 ‘outside pressures,’ Roper [v. Simmons (2005) 543 U.S. 551, 569 [ 161 L.Ed.2d 1 , 125 S.Ct. 1183 ]].” (J.

2015(Mixon, supra, 207 Cal.App.4th at p. 137 [“a dangerous condition of public property may be based on a combination of factors”].) Considering each factor in isolation led the trial court to apply disconnected rules of law pertaining to the marking of crosswalks and the conduct of third party motorists and overlook the panorama of conditions present.

2015(Id. at p. 1183.) To reach a contrary conclusion, the majority agrees with plaintiffs, based on their expert’s declaration, that “triable issues of material fact exist based on the frequency of use by children, the presence of three schools, shopping centers that are frequented by the school children in this residential neighborhood, insufficient traffic gaps, combined with inadequate crosswalk painting at the intersection, lack of traffic controls at this intersection when conditions require them, as well as a prior history of accidents and studies of the intersection.” (Maj. opn., at pp. 12-

2015Our finding that Elias’s statements were involuntary is based on a combination of factors: (1) Elias’s youth, which rendered him “ ‘most susceptible to influence,’ Eddings [v. Oklahoma (1982) 455 U.S. 104, 115 [ 71 L.Ed.2d 1 , 102 S.Ct. 869 ]], and *587 ‘outside pressures,’ Roper [v. Simmons (2005) 543 U.S. 551, 569 [ 161 L.Ed.2d 1 , 125 S.Ct. 1183 ]].” (J.

2015Our finding that Elias’s statements were involuntary is based on a combination of factors: (1) Elias’s youth, which rendered him “ ‘most susceptible to influence,’ Eddings [v. Oklahoma (1982) 455 U.S. 104, 115 [ 71 L.Ed.2d 1 , 102 S.Ct. 869 ]], and *587 ‘outside pressures,’ Roper [v. Simmons (2005) 543 U.S. 551, 569 [ 161 L.Ed.2d 1 , 125 S.Ct. 1183 ]].” (J.

2013Such lesser weakness need not be longlasting nor wholly incapacitating, but 14 may be merely a lack of full vigor due to age [citation], physical condition [citation], emotional anguish [citation], or a combination of such factors." (Odorizzi, supra, 246 Cal.App.2d at p. 131 .) "In some of its aspects this lesser weakness could perhaps be called weakness of spirit.

1968Code, § 1575; see Odorizzi v. Bloomfield School Dist., supra, 246 Cal.App.2d at p. 131 .) The last mentioned statute, in subdivision 2 thereof, provides that undue influence consits “In taking an unfair advantage of another’s weakness of mind. ...” In, Odorizzi it is noted that the lesser weakness of mind referred to in *835 section 1575 need not be long lasting or wholly incapacitating, but may consist of such factors as lack of full vigor due to age, physical condition, emotional anguish, or a combination of such factors.

2003In Wheeler , we said that we will ‘rely on the good judgment of the trial courts to distinguish bona fide reasons for such peremptories from sham excuses belatedly contrived to avoid admitting acts of group discrimination.’ (Wheeler, supra, 22 Cal.3d at p. 282 .) Similarly, the high court stated in Batson v. Kentucky, supra, that ‘the trial judge’s findings in the context under consideration here largely will turn on evaluation of credibility,’ and for that reason ‘a reviewing court ordinarily should give those findings great deference.’ ( 476 U.S. at p. 98, fn. 21 .)” (Fuentes, supra, 54 Cal.

1990(See generally, Batson v. Kentucky, supra, 476 U.S. 79 ; Wheeler, supra, 22 Cal.3d at p. 280, fn. 26.) However, defendant did not establish a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination or systematic exclusion solely by his observation that one prospective juror peremptorily challenged by the prosecutor was Black.

2026(People v. Guajardo (1994) 23 6 Cal.App.4th 1738, 1742-1743 ; People v. Sanchez (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 42, 45, 48 ; People v. Jones (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 398, 405-406 .) Moreover, his repeated refusal to take a drug test is “reasonably interpreted as a consciousness of guilt” given his intoxicated state, and it provided further “probable cause.” (Marvin v. Dep’t of Motor Vehicles (1984) 161 Cal.App.3d 717, 720 ; see also People v. Zavala (1966) 239 Cal.App.2d 732, 740 .) Officer Lopez’s Credibility Appellant contends Lopez’s credibility was impeached by the bodycam video evidence.

2026(People v. Guajardo (1994) 23 6 Cal.App.4th 1738, 1742-1743 ; People v. Sanchez (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 42, 45, 48 ; People v. Jones (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 398, 405-406 .) Moreover, his repeated refusal to take a drug test is “reasonably interpreted as a consciousness of guilt” given his intoxicated state, and it provided further “probable cause.” (Marvin v. Dep’t of Motor Vehicles (1984) 161 Cal.App.3d 717, 720 ; see also People v. Zavala (1966) 239 Cal.App.2d 732, 740 .) Officer Lopez’s Credibility Appellant contends Lopez’s credibility was impeached by the bodycam video evidence.