Case law

City of San Jose v. Superior Court of Santa Clara Cnty.

214 Cal. Rptr. 3d 274 · California Supreme Court · Mar 2, 2017

To qualify as a public record, a writing must “contain[] information relating to the conduct of the public‟s business.” (§ 6252, subd. (e).) … It is well established that a governmental entity, like a corporation, can act only through its 5 Article IV establishes the Legislature, and article VI establishes the state‟s judiciary. (Cal. Const., arts.

Frances T. v. Village Green Owners Assn.

42 Cal. 3d 490 · California Supreme Court · Sep 4, 1986

Director status therefore neither immunizes a person from individual liability nor subjects him or her to vicarious liability. … Director status neither immunizes a person from individual liability nor subjects him or her to vicarious liability.

People v. Skinner

39 Cal. 3d 765 · California Supreme Court · Sep 16, 1985

Rep. 718, 722]: “[T]o establish a defence on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at the time of the committing the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the … other prong, he clearly does not.”

Legislature of the State of Cal. v. Weber

California Supreme Court · Jun 20, 2024

We issued an order to show cause and established an expedited briefing schedule in order to resolve this matter before the date that the Secretary must formally qualify the initiative for the ballot and prepare related materials … After considering the pleadings and briefs filed by the parties and amici curiae as well as the parties’ oral arguments, we conclude that Petitioners have clearly established that the challenged measure would revise the Constitution

In re Organization & of the Bonds of the Central Irrigation District

117 Cal. 382 · California Supreme Court · Jun 24, 1897

The proceeding established by the confirmation act is expressly directed to be had to review the determination of the board of supervisors, and therefore all claim of finality for the decision of the board must fall to the … Clearly, it is not for the board of supervisors to cause the publication. Its functions do not begin until after the publication has been completed. The petitioners, then, and no others, are to give the notice.

Ex Parte Beck

162 Cal. 701 · California Supreme Court · May 27, 1912

Substantially the act provides as follows in respect to all matters material here: Qualified electors of any incorporated city or town, or of that portion of any supervisorial district not included within the boundaries of … We have seen that the act is clearly a general law, purporting to be applicable everywhere in the state, and as a matter of fact, applicable everywhere in the state except possibly in cities having freeholders’ charters.

French v. Teschemaker

24 Cal. 518 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1864

Is this manifest omission supplied by any established rule of common law? … The more general words are qualified and limited by those which follow, and give a narrower scope to the legislative intent.

Cnty. of San Diego v. Comm'n on State Mandates

240 Cal. Rptr. 3d 52 · California Supreme Court · Nov 19, 2018

The question left unresolved by these provisions is what, precisely, qualifies as a mandate imposed by the voters. … When more people qualify as potential SVPs, a county must review more records.

Nat. Bank Etc. v. Western Pac. Ry. Co.

157 Cal. 573 · California Supreme Court · Apr 7, 1910

Natoma Co., 9 Cal. 78 , the question was not involved, but the court quotes the above extract from the first Weston decision, saying: “The principle clearly established by this decision is, that the books of the corporation … The court says, however, that the second decision in the Weston case was not intended to overrule or qualify the first.

People v. Long

15 Cal. 2d 590 · California Supreme Court · Jun 27, 1940

The first portion of that instruction, which in effect told the jury that it would have to find that defendant had established his defense “beyond reasonable doubt” before he could be found not guilty, was clearly erroneous … It reads as follows: (1) “Duly qualified experts may give their opinions on questions in controversy at a trial to assist the jury in deciding such questions.

Foley v. Interactive Data Corp.

47 Cal. 3d 654 · California Supreme Court · Dec 29, 1988

The qualifying contracts cannot be identified until the issue has been litigated, which is too late." (Putz & Klippen, supra, 21 U.S.F.L.Rev. at pp. 478-479.) … There has, however, clearly and indisputably, been no holding by this court that such a cause of action exists.

People v. West Publishing Co.

35 Cal. 2d 80 · California Supreme Court · Apr 4, 1950

It has not qualified to do intrastate business in California. … The company had never qualified to do business as a foreign corporation in Iowa nor did it have any office, branch or warehouse there, but its local activities were deemed sufficient to establish it as “a retailer maintaining

Morgan Clark v. Millsap

197 Cal. 765 · California Supreme Court · Jan 6, 1926

The transactions into which she was led show very clearly that she was a woman without previous business experience. … He testified to the fact, which was amply established by the testimony of other witnesses, that “all the money we received was money received from the property which Mrs. Morgan transferred to the corporation.”

Westberg v. Willde

14 Cal. 2d 360 · California Supreme Court · Oct 2, 1939

In that case the statement of facts is quite brief and so far as appears from the opinion the instruction was not qualified as in the instant case. (See, Ellison v. Lang Transp. … The appellant was entitled to have that matter clearly and correctly presented by the instructions.

People v. O'Brien

96 Cal. 171 · California Supreme Court · Sep 9, 1892

many cases, such as selling intoxicating liquors to minors, abducting girls under a certain age, usurping an office under the belief that the usurper was truly elected, illegal voting under the belief that the voter is a qualified … Sections 7, 112, and 113 of the Penal Code, when read together, clearly establish the proposition that it was not necessary in making out the offense to prove any fraudulent intention on the part of the defendant.

People v. Wolff

182 Cal. 728 · California Supreme Court · May 12, 1920

The truth of the statements by Greer to the witness was fully established by other uncontradicted evidence. … We have examined it, however, and find that it clearly establishes his guilt of a cold-blooded, mercenary, deliberate and willful murder. The judgment is affirmed.

Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority v. Public Utilities Commission

52 Cal. 2d 655 · California Supreme Court · Sep 15, 1959

In creating the Authority, the 1957 Act necessarily looked to the future, and by stating that “only a specially created authority can operate effectively in said metropolitan area,” it clearly contemplates that ultimately … which has executive personnel with experience and skill applicable to the superintendence of the operation and maintenance of any part of the system for the furnishing of its services and the services of experienced and qualified

People v. May

44 Cal. 3d 309 · California Supreme Court · Feb 1, 1988

He clearly had such rights under both the state and federal Constitutions. … , [] [and] whether the requirement of such use immunity based on pre-Proposition 8 decisional law survived the passage of [section 28(d)].

Connolly v. County of Orange

1 Cal. 4th 1105 · California Supreme Court · Feb 27, 1992

Plaintiffs seek to establish the Regents’ standing as a proper party to the litigation and thereby to establish the propriety of prepayment litigation by petition for writ of mandate. … To grant a tax exemption to the faculty member’s private long-term leasehold interest in these circumstances clearly would extend the section 3(d) exemption beyond its intended reach.

Better Food Markets, Inc. v. American District Telegraph Co.

40 Cal. 2d 179 · California Supreme Court · Feb 6, 1953

indicate that there is no intention to depart from the universal rule established elsewhere.” … However, the error warrants only a qualified reversal of the judgment, as the plaintiff’s recovery is limited to $50 if he should prevail on a retrial.