success requirement in California

2025It is common knowledge that gang members commit crimes, often with firearms … [and] evidence a defendant is a gang member may be highly inflammatory.” (People v. Avitia, supra, 127 Cal.App.4th at p. 194 .) We do not disagree with those observations, but the prejudice in Avitia was directly tied to the fact “Avitia’s credibility was key to the success of his defense.” (Id. at p. 195.) Morales did not submit to custodial interrogation or testify at trial, so his credibility was never at issue.

2025As the trial court explained, the expiration of 6 Champir involved Civil Code section 5975, pursuant to which the success analysis “ ‘focuses on who prevailed “on a practical level” by achieving its main litigation objectives.’ ” (Champir, supra, 66 Cal.App.5th at p. 590.) Zuehlsdorf involved Government Code section 800, which likewise requires “ ‘an evaluation of whether a party prevailed “ ‘ “on a practical level,” ’ ” ’ ” including considering “the extent to which each party has realized its litigation objectives.” (Zuehlsdorf, supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 257 .) 30 the project approvals “d

2022(Denham, supra, 2 Cal.3d at p. 564 .) We therefore affirm the verdict on the breach of oral contract claim.7 Defendants alternatively argue that even if plaintiffs proved the existence of an oral agreement, the breach of oral agreement cause of action would fail because the MTA’s integration clause extinguished any oral agreement between the 7 We also reject defendants’ challenges to the verdict on the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and judgment for specific performance as they depend exclusively on the success of the challenge to the oral contract cause of action. 16 parties.

2020(See People v. Kronemyer (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 314, 349 [the success of a claim based on cumulative errors turns on whether “it is reasonably probable the jury would have reached a result more favorable to [the] defendant in their absence”], overruled on other grounds by People v. Whitmer (2014) 59 Cal.4th 733, 761-762 .) DISPOSITION Imposition of the five-year prior serious felony conviction enhancements attached to counts 1 and 2 are reversed.

2020(Giles v. Horn (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 206, 227 .) According to Adams, any potential claim for monetary damages against him arising out of the demolition would have to be presented in connection with Adams’s discharge as receiver.6 But the success of such a claim would hinge on a determination that the demolition order was improper—the exact issue to be determined in this appeal.

2010(Nadler v. Schwarzenegger (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 1327, 1334 [ 41 Cal.Rptr.3d 92 ].) Two California cases, Jogani v. Jogani (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 158 [ 45 Cal.Rptr.3d 792 ] (Jogani), and Gottlieb v. Kest (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 110 [ 46 Cal.Rptr.3d 7 ], focus on the success requirement, and hold that the requirement is not met where there is no judicial acceptance of the party’s position.

2010(Nadler v. Schwarzenegger (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 1327, 1334 [ 41 Cal.Rptr.3d 92 ].) Two California cases, Jogani v. Jogani (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 158 [ 45 Cal.Rptr.3d 792 ] (Jogani), and Gottlieb v. Kest (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 110 [ 46 Cal.Rptr.3d 7 ], focus on the success requirement, and hold that the requirement is not met where there is no judicial acceptance of the party’s position.

2010(Nadler v. Schwarzenegger (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 1327, 1334 [ 41 Cal.Rptr.3d 92 ].) Two California cases, Jogani v. Jogani (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 158 [ 45 Cal.Rptr.3d 792 ] (Jogani), and Gottlieb v. Kest (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 110 [ 46 Cal.Rptr.3d 7 ], focus on the success requirement, and hold that the requirement is not met where there is no judicial acceptance of the party’s position.

2010(Nadler v. Schwarzenegger (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 1327, 1334 [ 41 Cal.Rptr.3d 92 ].) Two California cases, Jogani v. Jogani (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 158 [ 45 Cal.Rptr.3d 792 ] (Jogani), and Gottlieb v. Kest (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 110 [ 46 Cal.Rptr.3d 7 ], focus on the success requirement, and hold that the requirement is not met where there is no judicial acceptance of the party’s position.

2010In Levin v. Ligon, supra, 140 Cal.App.4th 1456 , the plaintiff sued his former wife in California for a partition of financial assets held in her name.

2006(See New Hampshire, supra, 532 U.S. at p. 751 ; MW Erectors, supra, 36 Cal.4th at p. 422 .) Further, in *181 Hamilton, the prior sworn statement (a verified pleading) was filed in the earlier litigation, creating a risk that the first court might be misled by it.

2006(See New Hampshire, supra, 532 U.S. at p. 751 ; MW Erectors, supra, 36 Cal.4th at p. 422 .) Further, in *181 Hamilton, the prior sworn statement (a verified pleading) was filed in the earlier litigation, creating a risk that the first court might be misled by it.

2005If his testimony was believed, he was a former small arms repairman in the United States Marine Corps and a gun hobbyist, who was simply conducting target practice with a pellet gun, an activity the People did not contend was unlawful. 7 Evidence Avitia was a gang member, on the other hand, suggested to the jury that he had a criminal disposition and was therefore guilty as charged (People v. Carter, supra, 30 Cal.4th at p. 1194 ), that his story was probably false, and that his arsenal of guns, in the hands of a gang member, presented a special danger to the community.