Case law

People v. Davenport

11 Cal. 4th 1171 · California Supreme Court · Dec 11, 1995

The record, reviewed independently by the trial court, clearly established specific nonrace-related reasons, i.e., the prospective jurors’ aversion to the death penalty and their demeanor, why a prosecutor might want to excuse … sufficient to qualify him as an expert on the subject to which his testimony relates.”

Sander v. State Bar of Cal.

58 Cal. 4th 300 · California Supreme Court · Dec 19, 2013

The right was not limited, 6 The federal courts have similarly recognized a common law right of public access to government documents, although the parameters of the right have not been clearly established. … It had no need to do so, because the documents at issue clearly fell into the category that need not be disclosed.

People v. Steelik

187 Cal. 361 · California Supreme Court · Nov 12, 1921

W. is an organization as clearly denounced by the statute as unlawful as though it was mentioned by name. … The petition was filed July 25, 1919, and was denied July 31, 1919, without argument, because the court was thoroughly satisfied that the law was immune from the attack against it.

Edson v. Southern Pacific R.R. Co.

144 Cal. 182 · California Supreme Court · Jul 22, 1904

This being so, the findings themselves will clearly present the ease to be decided. They are as follows:— “1. … But was the rate lowered for “the purpose of competing with any other common carrier” within the meaning and intent of that qualifying clause Í In the ordinary sense of the word, no doubt the rate was lowered for the purpose

Baker v. Brickell

87 Cal. 329 · California Supreme Court · Jan 3, 1891

The action is brought to establish a trust against defendant Brickell. … It is clearly correct, and meets approval. The other circumstances, viz., the fact that Maria Baker qualified and was appointed as administratrix of John H.

People v. Maki

39 Cal. 3d 707 · California Supreme Court · Sep 3, 1985

There was no evidence presented to meet the cited criteria and the documents therefore do not qualify as admissible business records. … He asserts that the Whittaker decision was “clearly untenable and erroneous” because if it were generally applied then “the truth of a document written by any declarant is established from the mere fact of possession of such

General Dynamics Corp. v. County of Los Angeles

51 Cal. 2d 59 · California Supreme Court · Oct 24, 1958

Code, § 104) and invoke section 1 of article XIII of the California Constitution and Revenue and Taxation Code, section 201, as establishing the same rule with respect to personal property. … we cannot overlook the historical distinction between real and personal property that is reflected not only in the statutory provisions but in common *66 understanding of what sort of interest in property is necessary to qualify

Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Fales

8 Cal. 3d 712 · California Supreme Court · Jan 23, 1973

That is, Liberty’s aim was to prove that Pales was negligent in the accident and Pales as a matter of defense attempted to negate such a showing and, instead, to establish that it was Maeyama who was at fault. … Whatever the contract in that case may have provided, section 11580.2, subdivision (g), clearly specifies that the insurer’s rights against the uninsured motorist arise only upon payment of the claim of the insured.

People v. Kemp

55 Cal. 2d 458 · California Supreme Court · Mar 2, 1961

In so holding the appellate court stated (p. 471): “The charge of rape of Betty Maund and of assault with intent to commit rape of Doris Cook clearly belong to the same class of crimes, and the same is true of the charges … We think a further common element may properly be said to appear in that in each instance a woman was kidnaped *476 and a common intent is clearly disclosed. It may be said here as was said in People v.

Isbister v. Boys' Club of Santa Cruz, Inc.

40 Cal. 3d 72 · California Supreme Court · Oct 21, 1985

The Club certainly qualifies as a "place of amusement." … The real problem is the extent of this immunity from the reach of section 51.

People v. MacIel

57 Cal. 4th 482 · California Supreme Court · Aug 8, 2013

You can see it clearly on People‘s 41. You can see the handprint of a little girl on the back of her mother‘s slacks. … I can‘t really think too clearly right now.‖ She added, ―Since I can‘t really think too clearly, I feel like while deliberating, hearing the other jurors‘ opinions, it would kind of alter my opinion to go their way, not really

Daniels v. Department of Motor Vehicles

33 Cal. 3d 532 · California Supreme Court · Mar 10, 1983

mandate of Government Code section 11513 against sole reliance on hearsay evidence is emphatic; the language of section 14108 fails to express a clear legislative intent to supersede section 11513. 4 Unlike statutes *539 that clearly … the importance of the right affected and the lack of legislative authorization allowing sole reliance on the SR 1 report, we hold that, when the licensee requests a hearing, the SR 1 report is in itself insufficient to establish

Sharon S. v. Superior Court

2 Cal. Rptr. 3d 699 · California Supreme Court · Aug 4, 2003

Annette signed adoption forms clearly stating her intention to accept coparental rights and responsibilities for Joshua to be shared with Sharon. … to disclaim their established responsibilities.

Pfingsten v. Westenhaver

39 Cal. 2d 12 · California Supreme Court · May 13, 1952

Moreover, the testimony as to the necessity for the repairs was improperly admitted because the witness did not establish his qualifications. … Clearly, from his testimony a trailer is virtually useless without a tractor and the equipment is of value only when used in combination. In Kohl v.

People v. Privitera

23 Cal. 3d 697 · California Supreme Court · Mar 15, 1979

It is established that accurate and early diagnosis of many forms of cancer, followed by prompt application of methods of treatment which are scientifically proven, either materially reduces the likelihood of death from cancer … The lay defendants, of course, were not qualified to diagnose cancer, much less to determine whether a cancerous condition was “terminal.”

Automotriz Del Golfo De California v. Resnick

47 Cal. 2d 792 · California Supreme Court · Jan 30, 1957

In this state of the record the trial court was clearly justified in concluding that defendants had failed to meet the burden of proving that the sale involved here was an intrastate transaction. … Cowan, to establish a car company.

Fashion Valley Mall, LLC v. National Labor Relations Board

69 Cal. Rptr. 3d 288 · California Supreme Court · Dec 24, 2007

Claiborne Hardware Co., supra, 458 U.S. 886, 911 [“boycott clearly involved constitutionally protected activity”].) … “Clearly, government has no power to restrict [expressive] activity because of its message.

People v. Hazelton

14 Cal. 4th 101 · California Supreme Court · Dec 5, 1996

The governing principles in determining whether a statute repeals another by implication are well established. “[T]he law shuns repeals by implication, . . .” (Board of Supervisors v. … “The presumption against implied repeal is so strong that, ‘To overcome the presumption the two acts must be irreconcilable, clearly repugnant, and so inconsistent that the two cannot have concurrent operation.

Neel v. Magana, Olney, Levy, Cathcart & Gelfand

6 Cal. 3d 176 · California Supreme Court · Dec 2, 1971

Postponement of accrual of the cause of action until the client discovers, or should discover, the material facts in issue vindicates the fiduciary duty of full disclosure; it prevents the fiduciary from obtaining immunity … This inference of passive approval clearly falters in the present case. The rule against delayed accrual dates only from Griffith v.

People v. Combs

22 Cal. Rptr. 3d 61 · California Supreme Court · Dec 16, 2004

Defendant’s second claim that he was inadequately advised of his right to counsel is clearly without merit. … Defendant complains that Ogino’s expertise was not established because he failed to state that the specified classes he attended had been taught at a university or by qualified individuals, or to specify how many tests he