Case law

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

Wood v. County of Calaveras

164 Cal. 398 · California Supreme Court · Dec 26, 1912

heads of families in a city high school district, district high school district, and in each school district composing the union high school district or districts, if there be more than one in the county, submit to all the qualified … The whole matter is one of legislative control and the legislature has clearly provided for the formation of a union high school district within a county whfere a county high school exists. In Hughes v.

Fitts v. Superior Court

4 Cal. 2d 514 · California Supreme Court · Oct 29, 1935

In other words, the same grand jury was clearly without jurisdiction to reindict the petitioner. This jurisdictional defect brought the case within the rule of the Bruner ease, to which reference was there made. … Nor is it an irregular assemblage of men legally qualified to act, and who do act, under the control of the proper court. Here the grand jury had no authority to act at all in the matter.

Rodriguez v. FCA US, LLC

California Supreme Court · Oct 31, 2024

In 1987, the Legislature established a refund-or- replace remedy specific to new motor vehicles with detailed requirements (Stats. 1987, ch. 1280, § 2, pp. 4557–4559; see § 1793.2, subd. … depart from the basic scheme and extend manufacturer liability in this way, again we think it would have spoken more clearly.

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.

Zamos v. Stroud

12 Cal. Rptr. 3d 54 · California Supreme Court · Jun 9, 2004

The court held that Taylor and Peterson were immune from liability under the “common law witness immunity doctrine” set forth in Briscoe v. LaHue (1983) 460 U.S. 325 [ 75 L.Ed.2d 96 , 103 S.Ct. 1108 ] and Silberg v. … Whether plaintiffs have established a prima facie case is a question of law. (Wilson v.

People v. Superior Court

69 Cal. 2d 491 · California Supreme Court · Oct 31, 1968

The five decisions applied, to a limited degree, the definition of jurisdiction established by Abelleira v. … In the instant case the trial judge dismissed the ease on the stated ground of insufficiency of evidence to establish *505 guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Taxpayers to Limit Campaign Spending v. Fair Political Practices Commission

51 Cal. 3d 744 · California Supreme Court · Nov 1, 1990

This charter provision established a dual system. … This section shall not prohibit the establishment of savings accounts, but no qualified campaign expenditures shall be made out of these accounts. 85317.

People v. Brown

40 Cal. 3d 512 · California Supreme Court · Dec 5, 1985

However, any error in admitting Johnston’s testimony here was clearly harmless. … [is] properly qualified as an expert to give an opinion on the subject.

Common Cause v. Board of Supervisors

49 Cal. 3d 432 · California Supreme Court · Aug 24, 1989

Harman, supra, 1 Cal. 3d at pp. 159-160 [taxpayer standing to seek injunction establishes standing to seek money damages on behalf of municipality].) … clearly defined machinery for the submission, evaluation and resolution of complaints by aggrieved parties.” ’ ” (Ross v.

Pennell v. City of San Jose

42 Cal. 3d 365 · California Supreme Court · Aug 11, 1986

The rental unit change is clearly a regulatory fee. (See City & County of San Francisco v. Boss (1948) 83 Cal.App.2d 445, 450-451 [ 189 P.2d 32 ].) We agree with Mills v. … The burden of proof in establishing any other economic hardship shall be on the tenant.”

Peery v. Superior Court

29 Cal. 3d 837 · California Supreme Court · Sep 3, 1981

Second, even if Peery and Arrillaga were not entitled to bring the expungement motion, an issue we do not decide, they need not have been parties to the motion in order to qualify as parties aggrieved within the meaning of … The court below clearly erred in refusing to consider any substantive allegations or evidence from either party in denying the expungement motion.

Coulter v. Pool

187 Cal. 181 · California Supreme Court · Oct 7, 1921

Clearly, it was a county *190 office.” (Reed v. Hammond, 18 Cal. App. 442 , [ 123 Pac. 346 ].) … The legislature itself must by its own enactment establish in the first instance a system of county government uniform throughout the state, and it necessarily follows that such system, when once established, must, in so

People v. Strong

30 Cal. 151 · California Supreme Court · Apr 15, 1866

The evidence in the case on which the prosecution relied to establish the defendant’s guilt was mostly of a circumstantial nature. … But the .principles which are inculcated by these .requested instructions are clearly set forth in others given, and in the general charge of the Court to the jury.

Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Superior Court

47 Cal. 4th 725 · California Supreme Court · Nov 30, 2009

establish the communication was not confidential or that the privilege does not for other reasons apply. … The second is clearly inadequate as it would involve the possibility of a jail sentence and additional delay in the principal litigation during review of the contempt order.

Ferguson v. Industrial Accident Commission

50 Cal. 2d 469 · California Supreme Court · Jun 6, 1958

It should clearly appear. This point of view was reiterated by the court in the Bachraeh ease (State v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1957), supra, 147 Cal.App.2d 818, 822-823 ) and is one with which we are in accord. … Inasmuch as respondent commission placed its decision (award denying recourse to the Subsequent Injuries Fund) solely on the ground that petitioner had failed to establish previous employer knowledge of his alleged earlier

Times Mirror Co. v. Superior Court

53 Cal. 3d 1325 · California Supreme Court · Jul 22, 1991

The Times apparently believes that past events cannot qualify as “predecisional” and therefore do not merit protection under exemption 5 of the FOIA. (See NLRB v. … As noted earlier, however, the question under section 6255 is not whether a document qualifies in every particular for protection under federal law, but whether the public interest in nondisclosure clearly outweighs the public

Petaluma Savings Bank v. Superior Court

111 Cal. 488 · California Supreme Court · Mar 10, 1896

The receiver first appointed failed to qualify, but on June 27, 1894, Wilson T. Smith—a subsequent appointee—assumed the office and entered upon the discharge of his duties. … Which of these two positions is assumed by respondent is not, as above stated, very clearly indicated by the argument of counsel, and neither is it very clearly to be implied from the order denying plaintiff's application

McDowell & Craig v. City of Santa Fe Springs

54 Cal. 2d 33 · California Supreme Court · Apr 19, 1960

Section 35104 of the inhabited act declares, so far as here material, that “To qualify for annexation, new territory shall be contiguous to: (a) The city . . .” In City of Port Hueneme v. … Code, § 35113] ” likewise establishes that contiguity must exist at the time of such resolution of approval.

Redevelopment Agency v. County of San Bernardino

21 Cal. 3d 255 · California Supreme Court · May 16, 1978

make augmented property values the source of new tax revenue to be used for servicing tax allocation bonds; to facilitate redevelopment by facilitating the bonds and not to present general government with a tax windfall by immunizing … In approving the parties’ agreement, however, the court in Malaki clearly *264 found that article XVI mandated the agreed upon readjustment.