Case law

F. A. Hihn Co. v. City of Santa Cruz

170 Cal. 436 · California Supreme Court · Jun 18, 1915

The contrary was clearly proven. … This evidence was not sufficient to establish the city’s ownership of a prescriptive right in the land.

Estate of Newton

35 Cal. 2d 830 · California Supreme Court · Sep 7, 1950

The Legislature could not more clearly demonstrate an intention to stand by the method of taxing such transfers so far as it constitutionally could do so. … By that amendment the Legislature clearly expressed an intention to tax all transfers at death to the full extent of California's jurisdiction to tax.

Mooney v. Pickett

4 Cal. 3d 669 · California Supreme Court · Apr 28, 1971

Regulation GA-08, however, clearly excludes non-emergency aid to employable persons. It states that “Generally speaking, employable persons are not eligible for General Assistance. … This language raises a substantial doubt whether petitioner, a healthy, unmarried adult, could possibly qualify for emergency aid under that regulation.

Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. Padilla

62 Cal. 4th 486 · California Supreme Court · Jan 4, 2016

The state Constitution does not otherwise clearly address the matter. … See also The Federalist No. 44 (Cooke ed., 1961) pages 304-305 (Madison) (“No axiom is more clearly established in law, or in reason, than that wherever the end is required, the means are authorised; wherever a general power

Adams v. City of Modesto

53 Cal. 2d 833 · California Supreme Court · Mar 18, 1960

This court emphasized (p. 589) that such a situation is “clearly dis- *838 tinguishable from the Pohle case [Pohle v. … Inasmuch as a cause of action arises only upon termination of city employment, only six of the plaintiffs qualify, and the amended complaint shows that as to each of the six the termination date was less than three years

Eby v. Board of School Trustees of Red Bank School District

87 Cal. 166 · California Supreme Court · Dec 18, 1890

The question of title can be inquired into and determined in a proper proceeding, but clearly not in this.” … After the site for the school-house had been lawfully established and fixed by the meeting of the electors, he was entitled to all the benefits and conveniences inci *174 dentally resulting therefrom to him individually,

Stevens v. Snow

191 Cal. 58 · California Supreme Court · Apr 23, 1923

Stevens . . . worked the thing up and got it done we do not so much blame the public officers who are involved in it,” clearly implies that he succeeded in imposing upon the supervisors by some means. … The only privilege which could possibly be claimed herein is a qualified privilege and the defendants, having failed to tender this issue by their answer, cannot be heard to say that it should have been submitted to the jury

People v. Epps

104 Cal. Rptr. 2d 572 · California Supreme Court · Mar 5, 2001

We note, however, that official government records clearly describing a prior conviction presumptively establish that the conviction in fact occurred, assuming those records meet the threshold requirements of admissibility … Moreover, the prior conviction records were official government *30 documents clearly describing the alleged convictions. As such, the fact of the convictions was presumptively established. (Evid. Code, § 664.)

Filmon.Com. Inc. v. Doubleverify Inc.

246 Cal. Rptr. 3d 591 · California Supreme Court · May 6, 2019

It noted that while the latter “can clearly be seen to have been made in the context of exercising the person’s constitutional right of speech,” the “content and context of the former activities are clearly more in furtherance … Having established this principle, we now turn to analyzing how context should feature in a court’s analysis under the catchall provision, and to applying that framework to the facts of this case.

People v. Camacho

301 Cal. Rptr. 3d 448 · California Supreme Court · Nov 28, 2022

Like I said, I believe evil does exist in our world, but I think that’s not a whole lot that would qualify as truly evil.” … Such a qualified statement lends no support to defendant’s argument. 5.

Rankins v. Commission on Professional Competence of the Ducor Union School District

24 Cal. 3d 167 · California Supreme Court · Apr 30, 1979

There was no shortage of fully qualified substitute teachers who could be and were called in to replace him at no additional cost to the district. … Hildebrand clearly is distinguishable. Byars at no time voluntarily accepted working conditions conflicting with his religion but, from the time he joined his church, refused to work on any holy day.

Burton v. Municipal Court

68 Cal. 2d 684 · California Supreme Court · Jun 6, 1968

The Legislature has clearly manifested no intent to preempt the field of commercial licensing. III. … Since such specificity is clearly lacking in the ordinances under consideration here they are unconstitutional on their face.

Markley v. Beagle

66 Cal. 2d 951 · California Supreme Court · Jun 27, 1967

Thus, the instruction concluded with the clearly stated alternative that the evidence need merely be adequate to enable the jury to fix the loss ‘ 1 with a reasonable degree of certainty. ’ ’ The owners contend that the court … Although only the owners offered Hood’s statement in evidence, plaintiff urged its admissibility and relied upon it in his argument to the jury to establish the contractors’ liability.

Higgins v. City of San Diego

118 Cal. 524 · California Supreme Court · Oct 9, 1897

But the question here is, whether the holder of a legal and valid claim shall have a plain and ordinary judgment establishing his right. … We wish also to qualify our former opinion so far as it may seem in any of its expressions to go beyond the decision in McBean v.

Levee Dist. No. 9 v. Farmer

23 L.R.A. 388 · California Supreme Court · Jan 26, 1894

The petition was signed by the required number of qualified persons, the description of the road sought to' be established and the one to be vacated were definite, and did not show that they were disconnected matters which … The author is there discussing the rights of abutting owners arising from the dedication of streets by the owner of the soil, and improvements made on the faith of such dedication, as is clearly showm by the cases cited in

Tuttle v. Crawford

8 Cal. 2d 126 · California Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1936

The contention is that said sentence or phrase should have been preceded by qualifying or conditional words to the effect that the question as to the method of arriving at damages should only be considered in the event that … Language must be construed with reference to the subject-matter to which it clearly relates or which it qualifies.

Eleazer v. Superior Court

1 Cal. 3d 847 · California Supreme Court · Jan 30, 1970

to locate the informer. 5 The present case, moreover, does not merely involve an insufficiency of government knowledge; here the police deliberately resolved to make no effort to learn the residence of the informer or to establish … Compensation may be cash, as in this case, but may also consist of promises of immunity or of lessened charges or punishment. The “reasonable effort” required will, of course, depend on the facts of each case.

People v. Cord

157 Cal. 562 · California Supreme Court · Apr 5, 1910

It did not necessarily indicate that he thereby meant to qualify the statement that he was without hope of recovery. Whether or not he was without such hope was a question of fact to be determined in the court below. … The ultimate fact to be established is his actual personal character, and it is considered that the general opinion of his character held by persons who know him is of probative value as evidence of his real character.'

In Re Kelley

52 Cal. 3d 487 · California Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1990

State Bar (1984) 36 Cal.3d 785, 797 [ 205 Cal.Rptr. 834 , 685 P.2d 1185 ] [emotional disability, although lessening moral culpability of misconduct, does not immunize attorney from discipline necessary to protect public]. … It is well established that “one to whose conduct a statute clearly applies may not successfully challenge it for vagueness.” (See Cranston v.

People v. Macabeo

1 Cal. 5th 1206 · California Supreme Court · Dec 5, 2016

Even before Riley, however, the search here would not have qualified as a proper search incident to arrest under Diaz. … Unless a statute is clearly unconstitutional, an officer cannot be expected to question the judgment of the legislature that passed the law.