Case law

In Re Demergian

48 Cal. 3d 284 · California Supreme Court · Mar 16, 1989

He argues that Business and Professions Code section 6079, subdivision (b), establishes an unconstitutional classification based on the amount of evidence a litigant wishes to present. … Thus, it cannot provide the basis for a Fourteenth Amendment privileges and immunities claim.

People v. Danielson

3 Cal. 4th 691 · California Supreme Court · Oct 22, 1992

Huff and Mayland were competent and qualified to testify as experts. According to defendant, Dr. … Coleman’s testimony must be deemed “clearly nonprejudicial.” (Babbitt, 45 Cal.3d at p. 700 .) P.

Strang v. Cabrol

37 Cal. 3d 720 · California Supreme Court · Dec 27, 1984

That general principle is qualified, however, in subdivisions (b) and (c) added as part of the 1978 amendments: “(b) It is the intent of the Legislature to abrogate the holdings in cases such as Vesely v. … The Vesely court reasoned that the injured third party was among the class of persons for whose protection the statute was adopted and concluded a presumption of negligence would arise if the plaintiff could establish that

People v. Cobb

45 Cal. 2d 158 · California Supreme Court · Sep 23, 1955

’ ’ The corpus delicti having been established, there was ho error in admitting defendant Ault’s extrajudicial confession. … The evidence clearly demonstrated that defendants were guilty of the crime charged. Furthermore, Mr.

Estate of Tetsubumi Yano

188 Cal. 645 · California Supreme Court · May 1, 1922

The fact that the father paid the consideration for the transfer of this land to the minor does not establish a trust in the father’s favor under section 853 of the Civil Code. … It is clearly a discrimination against citizens of Japan residing in this state.

People v. Pierce

61 Cal. 2d 879 · California Supreme Court · Oct 29, 1964

The tortfeasor, though perhaps not quite himself or herself at the time of the tort, is clearly not one with the injured spouse. … Defendants finally contend that the long-established rule formulated by this court that would afford them immunity, should not now be overruled except by the Legislature.

C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School District

53 Cal. 4th 861 · California Supreme Court · Mar 8, 2012

immunity for emergency rescue personnel. … immunity defense that governed vicarious liability in Eastburn has no possible application here.

Rice v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board

21 Cal. 3d 431 · California Supreme Court · May 30, 1978

We attempt, then, to isolate the characteristics which will qualify a program or rule as a sovereign act of the state so as to exempt it from the Sherman Act. … This contention is clearly without merit.

Brown v. Merlo

8 Cal. 3d 855 · California Supreme Court · Feb 20, 1973

These three cases, Emery, Klein and Gibson , dealing with the entire range of intrafamilial immunities, establish that it is unreasonable to eliminate causes of action of an entire class of persons simply because some undefined … Moreover, in creating an immunity from the general rule of liability for negligence, the Legislature was well aware of—and did not alter—the established doctrine that such immunities form the exception, not the rule, and

Van Harlingen v. Doyle

134 Cal. 53 · California Supreme Court · Aug 24, 1901

granted privileges or immunities which, upon the same terms, shall not be granted to all citizens.” … These provisions of the law are clearly separable from the part claimed to be unconstitutional, and may stand, although that part be set aside.

People Ex Rel. Seal Beach Police Officers Ass'n v. City of Seal Beach

36 Cal. 3d 591 · California Supreme Court · Aug 23, 1984

While the Legislature established a procedure for resolving disputes regarding wages, hours and other conditions of employment, it did not attempt to establish standards for the wages, hours and other terms and conditions … Thus, the argument that the procedure for putting charter amendments on the ballot is sacrosanct and immune to legislative control has already been rejected.

In Re Blois

179 Cal. 291 · California Supreme Court · Nov 19, 1918

not be altered, revoked, or repealed by the legislature; nor shall any citizen, or class of citizens, be granted privileges or immunities which, upon the same terms, shall not be granted to all citizens.” … establishment.

Harris v. Zanone

93 Cal. 59 · California Supreme Court · Jan 22, 1892

Whether the utterance of the words by the defendant to the witness Loheide was a privileged communication depended upon the circumstances under which they were uttered, and by which such claim would be qualified. … Zanone that one Antone Ghisa had represented to the defendant that he had lost ten dollars from his vest pocket while the plaintiff was in the employ of the defendant, was clearly inadmissible.

Fin Lund v. Hansen

202 Cal. 267 · California Supreme Court · Oct 10, 1927

The preamble, or introductory paragraph, sets out very clearly and specifically the subject matter of said treaty in the following language: “The United States of America and His Majesty the King of Denmark, being desirous … If the Kingdom of Denmark desires to depart from the long-established practice of *272 transmitting to its subjects their distributable shares of estates due them from foreign lands, it is most reasonable to assume that it

Farmers Insurance Exchange v. Cocking

29 Cal. 3d 383 · California Supreme Court · May 21, 1981

As the second contention is clearly meritorious, we need not reach the state action issue. … [T]he freedom of the parties to exclude risks from an insurance contract is well established: [Citations.]” (United Farm Bur. Mut. Ins. Co. v.

Kisbey v. State of California

36 Cal. 3d 415 · California Supreme Court · Jul 12, 1984

(b)(3).) [1] The majority have ignored the well-established principle that "[u]nless the Legislature has clearly provided for immunity, the important societal goal of compensating injured parties for damages caused by willful … It is well established that "`when there is negligence, the rule is liability, immunity is the exception.'" ( Johnson v. State of California (1968) 69 Cal.2d 782 , 798 [ 73 Cal.

People v. Preston

9 Cal. 3d 308 · California Supreme Court · Apr 5, 1973

The Fifth Amendment immunizes the accused from being required to incriminate himself. … The principles stated in Morrison (pp. 712-714) clearly refute defendant’s contention.

Westlake Community Hospital v. Superior Court

17 Cal. 3d 465 · California Supreme Court · Jul 6, 1976

Kaiman’s complaint alleged that she is a qualified doctor “whose professional ethics and qualifications are of the highest calibre,” that she has been engaged in the private practice of medicine for 2516 years, that she is … The provisions of this section do not affect the official immunity of an officer or employee of a public corporation. [11] This section shall not be construed to confer immunity from liability on any professional society

Metcalf v. County of San Joaquin

72 Cal. Rptr. 3d 382 · California Supreme Court · Feb 21, 2008

Section 835.4 clearly creates an affirmative defense that the public entity must establish. (Hibbs v. Los Angeles County Flood Control Dist. (1967) 252 Cal.App.2d 166, 172 [ 60 Cal.Rptr. 364 ].) … This is the defense established by section 835.4, subdivision (b), but it basically parallels the defense established by subdivision (a) of that statute.

Myers v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc.

123 Cal. Rptr. 2d 40 · California Supreme Court · Aug 5, 2002

Just as federal courts apply the time-honored legal presumption that statutes operate prospectively “unless Congress has clearly manifested its intent to the contrary” (Hughes Aircraft Co. v. United States ex rel. … An established rule of statutory construction requires us to construe statutes to avoid “constitutional infirmities].” (United States v.