absence of statutory requirement in California

2026Code, § 820, subd. (a); see Caldwell v. Montoya (1995) 10 Cal.4th 972, 980 (Caldwell).) Further, under section 815.2, a public entity is vicariously liable for the torts of its employees.

1988We have deemed it proper for the prosecutor merely to note the absence of statutory factors which might warrant leniency. ( Ghent, supra, 43 Cal.3d at p. 771; Rodriguez, supra, 42 Cal.3d at pp. 789-790.) The subtle distinction between this form of argument, and that condemned in Rodriguez and Davenport , seems unlikely to have substantial effect on the jury's penalty deliberations unless the improper remarks are pronounced and *1263 egregious.

1988(Ghent, supra, 43 Cal.3d at p. 771; Rodriguez, supra, 42 Cal.3d at pp. 789-790.) The subtle distinction between this form of argument, and that condemned in Rodriguez and Davenport , seems unlikely to have substantial effect on the jury’s penalty deliberations unless the improper remarks are pronounced and egregious.

1984(Industrial Welfare Com. v. Superior Court (1980) 27 Cal.3d 690, 702 [ 166 Cal.Rptr. 331 , 613 P.2d 579 ], cert. den., 449 U.S. 1029 [ 66 L.Ed.2d 492 , 101 S.Ct. 602 ]; California Hotel & Motel Assn. v. Industrial Welfare Com. (1979) 25 Cal.3d 200, 212 [ 157 Cal.Rptr. 840 , 599 P.2d 31 ].) A reviewing court will not substitute its policy judgment for the agency’s in the absence of an arbitrary decision (ibid.), and in the absence of statutory requirement, the agency need not prepare findings in support of its legislative decision (Stauffer Chemical Co. v. Air Resources Board, supra, 128 Cal.Ap

1984(Industrial Welfare Com. v. Superior Court (1980) 27 Cal.3d 690, 702 [ 166 Cal.Rptr. 331 , 613 P.2d 579 ], cert. den., 449 U.S. 1029 [ 66 L.Ed.2d 492 , 101 S.Ct. 602 ]; California Hotel & Motel Assn. v. Industrial Welfare Com. (1979) 25 Cal.3d 200, 212 [ 157 Cal.Rptr. 840 , 599 P.2d 31 ].) A reviewing court will not substitute its policy judgment for the agency’s in the absence of an arbitrary decision (ibid.), and in the absence of statutory requirement, the agency need not prepare findings in support of its legislative decision (Stauffer Chemical Co. v. Air Resources Board, supra, 128 Cal.Ap

1984(Industrial Welfare Com. v. Superior Court (1980) 27 Cal.3d 690, 702 [ 166 Cal.Rptr. 331 , 613 P.2d 579 ], cert. den., 449 U.S. 1029 [ 66 L.Ed.2d 492 , 101 S.Ct. 602 ]; California Hotel & Motel Assn. v. Industrial Welfare Com. (1979) 25 Cal.3d 200, 212 [ 157 Cal.Rptr. 840 , 599 P.2d 31 ].) A reviewing court will not substitute its policy judgment for the agency’s in the absence of an arbitrary decision (ibid.), and in the absence of statutory requirement, the agency need not prepare findings in support of its legislative decision (Stauffer Chemical Co. v. Air Resources Board, supra, 128 Cal.Ap

1984(Industrial Welfare Com. v. Superior Court (1980) 27 Cal.3d 690, 702 [ 166 Cal.Rptr. 331 , 613 P.2d 579 ], cert. den., 449 U.S. 1029 [ 66 L.Ed.2d 492 , 101 S.Ct. 602 ]; California Hotel & Motel Assn. v. Industrial Welfare Com. (1979) 25 Cal.3d 200, 212 [ 157 Cal.Rptr. 840 , 599 P.2d 31 ].) A reviewing court will not substitute its policy judgment for the agency’s in the absence of an arbitrary decision (ibid.), and in the absence of statutory requirement, the agency need not prepare findings in support of its legislative decision (Stauffer Chemical Co. v. Air Resources Board, supra, 128 Cal.Ap

1954In the absence of statutory requirement, as said in respondent’s brief, “an oral agreement reached by the parties is binding unless it is clear that the parties intend that the agreement is not to be effective until reduced to writing.” (Johnston v. 20th Century-Fox Film Corp., 82 Cal.App.2d 796, 820 [ 187 P.2d 474 ].) And in the case of two former buildings constructed for Harvey by Empire, work had been commenced several days before the contract was put in writing. *416 Appellant also complains that the trial court erred in the admission of evidence concerning the two prior building contract

1954In the absence of statutory requirement, as said in respondent’s brief, “an oral agreement reached by the parties is binding unless it is clear that the parties intend that the agreement is not to be effective until reduced to writing.” (Johnston v. 20th Century-Fox Film Corp., 82 Cal.App.2d 796, 820 [ 187 P.2d 474 ].) And in the case of two former buildings constructed for Harvey by Empire, work had been commenced several days before the contract was put in writing. *416 Appellant also complains that the trial court erred in the admission of evidence concerning the two prior building contract

1928We have found no persuasive decision sustaining such legal presumption (in the absence of statutory requirement of correct bookkeeping), except on proof that the books were kept under the instruction, direction or supervision of the person against whom the entries are offered, or that such person presumably had examined the books or in some way obtained actual knowledge of the entries.” In the case of McDonald v. United States, 241 Fed. 793, 800 [ 154 C.

1928We have found no persuasive decision sustaining such legal presumption (in the absence of statutory requirement of correct bookkeeping), except on proof that the books were kept under the instruction, direction or supervision of the person against whom the entries are offered, or that such person presumably had examined the books or in some way obtained actual knowledge of the entries.” In the case of McDonald v. United States, 241 Fed. 793, 800 [ 154 C.