Case law

Goldman v. State Bar

20 Cal. 3d 130 · California Supreme Court · Oct 28, 1977

The direct and circumstantial evidence clearly establishes that petitioners engaged in the unprofessional conduct charged and found to be true. … State Bar (1972) 7 Cal.3d 676 [ 103 Cal.Rptr. 288 , 499 P.2d 968 ], on the ground that an attorney in a disciplinary proceeding does not have the same immunities as a defendant in a criminal proceeding.

Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates

38 Cal. 3d 488 · California Supreme Court · May 2, 1985

plaintiff settles with fewer than all defendants, the defendants are clearly adverse parties. … To say that section 877.6 cloaks Woodward-Clyde with immunity from liability to joint tortfeasors under these circumstances would *502 not serve the goal of encouraging settlement, and it would frustrate the goal of allocating

Hobart v. Hobart Estate Co.

26 Cal. 2d 412 · California Supreme Court · May 29, 1945

He owned no stock other than one share to qualify him as a director. … The evidence does not establish that Lachmund, Harris or Aureguy were qualified to give such assistance or that they attempted to advise plaintiff with respect thereto.

Durgin v. Kaplan

68 Cal. 2d 81 · California Supreme Court · Jan 23, 1968

Defendant successfully objected to his answer on *88 the ground that no foundation had been laid to qualify him as an expert witness. The balance of plaintiff’s case in chief dealt with the value of the stock. … ’ ’ The record clearly establishes that none of these factors in any way placed before the trial court the subrogation theory of full cash recovery or showed a proper attempt to exercise that remedial option.

Lawrence v. Southern Pacific Co.

189 Cal. 434 · California Supreme Court · Aug 16, 1922

Hines is the regularly appointed, duly qualified and acting director-general of railroads, under and by authority of the laws of the United States; that the defendant Southern Pacific Company was on the date of said accident … The next contention of said appellant is that his motion for nonsuit should have been granted for the reason that the contributory negligence of the decedent had been established by the plaintiffs’ evidence as a matter of

People v. Snyder

50 Cal. 2d 190 · California Supreme Court · Apr 10, 1958

Clearly, the failure to permit the introduction of the foregoing evidence was prejudicially erroneous. … It is the immunity section.

People v. Clark

5 Cal. 4th 950 · California Supreme Court · Aug 30, 1993

Clearly, not all conversation between an officer and a suspect constitutes interrogation. … In Simmons the United States Supreme Court established a rule of use immunity for a defendant’s testimony in a suppression hearing. In that case, the defendant was charged with armed robbery.

Babb v. Superior Court

3 Cal. 3d 841 · California Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1971

Defendant’s pleading is clearly not an original action. … By contrast, since the instant cross-action does not qualify as a cross-complaint (see fn. 1, ante), a claim for declaratory judgment is statutorily unauthorized.

Blythe v. Ayres

102 Cal. 254 · California Supreme Court · Apr 24, 1894

Section 1664 was clearly intended to provide the means by which, where there are hostile claimants to an estate, all the conflicting rights thereto may be summarily and finally determined in one proceeding. … But all the justices qualified to act in the case agree, as all the justices acting in Blythe v. Ayres, 96 Cal. 532 , *263 then agreed, that respondent is the heir of the decedent under section 1387.

Wulff-Hansen & Co. v. Silvers

21 Cal. 2d 253 · California Supreme Court · Dec 1, 1942

It is stated in 46 A.L.R. 628 : “Saddling a debt or burden upon a municipality which can be lifted only by municipal taxation is quite clearly the equivalent of imposing a tax. … And again at page 640: “While the rule has apparently been overlooked in some instances, it has been established by a considerable number of cases that the legislative imposition of obligations or burdens upon municipalities

Sacramento Etc. R.R. Co. v. Heilbron

156 Cal. 408 · California Supreme Court · Oct 29, 1909

It is conceded that they do clearly and pertinently declare the law. But instruction VIII, it is said, is self-destructive and at variance with instruction I. … It was not even contended that McWilliams qualified himself to testify as to the market value, and his testimony amounted to no more than that the land was suitable for nursery purposes, and that for such purposes a purchaser

Knox v. City of Orland

4 Cal. 4th 132 · California Supreme Court · Dec 10, 1992

First, the majority says that the residents’ interpretation of the statute “is clearly at odds with section 22605, which explicitly allows local legislative bodies to flexibly utilize the Act to consolidate into a single … This case results from one city’s attempt to establish a reliable and adequate source of funding to maintain its parks.

Modern Barber Colleges, Inc. v. California Employment Stabilization Commission

31 Cal. 2d 720 · California Supreme Court · Apr 29, 1948

Its constitutionality has never been questioned even though it clearly changes the effect of a writ of habeas corpus as it was formerly used in this state. … This prospect is made more alarming by the fact that the scope of the extraordinary writs was not clearly defined at common law.

Gooch v. Hendrix

5 Cal. 4th 266 · California Supreme Court · Jun 1, 1993

The clerk’s record established the ballot had been processed through BAP AC’s VEP. … The widespread illegal voting practices that permeated this election—including fraud and tampering, the clearly established violations of sections 1006 and 1013, BAPAC’s “loss” of 269 absentee ballots mailed to it by the

People v. Anderson

235 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1 · California Supreme Court · Jun 28, 2018

Defendant contends the court erred in admitting this item of evidence because it was inadmissible hearsay and did not qualify as a prior inconsistent statement. … It need not be sufficient to establish every element of the charged offense or to establish the precise facts to which the accomplice testified. [Citations.]

People v. Brown

8 Cal. 4th 746 · California Supreme Court · Nov 17, 1994

Approximately four months later, in December 1990, Cathy Boyle, a pediatric nurse who was qualified as an expert in the detection of sexual abuse of children, examined Audrey. … Additionally, the evidence of Audrey’s complaint to Diana Russell clearly fell within the limits appropriately governing the admissibility of such statements. 6 Audrey testified that Russell was the first adult “whom she

People v. Amaya

134 Cal. 531 · California Supreme Court · Nov 21, 1901

occurred at the bedside of Loucks, asked him in relation to some previous statements made at the time when Loucks was first discovered in his wounded condition, — statements which it is claimed would have contradicted or qualified … There was, however, evidence of such a conspiracy in the dying declaration of Loucks, and aside from this the facts testified to were of the res gestee,—they established the time of the assault,—a fact of importance in every

Bass v. Wardlaw

199 Cal. 351 · California Supreme Court · Sep 4, 1926

The situs of the greater portion of the estate was the republic of Mexico, and it is claimed by appellant that said property was subject to the control of the ancillary administratrix, who, it is further claimed, had qualified … Appellant was the administrator of the entire estate and of all the funds and property which came into his hands which were admittedly property and moneys belonging to the estate, and it was clearly his duty as such officer

People v. Boyette

127 Cal. Rptr. 2d 544 · California Supreme Court · Feb 11, 2003

This limited immunity 5 protects an accused’s rights under the Fifth Amendment and, in light of this immunity, we conclude defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights were not violated at the hearing. … He did not similarly qualify his answer when asked whether he could impose the death penalty.

Tract 19051 Homeowners Assn. v. Kemp

60 Cal. 4th 1135 · California Supreme Court · Mar 5, 2015

With regard to a development that does not qualify as a common interest development, a declaration of restrictions may be extended only by the unanimous vote of 100 percent of the property owners or by a vote of a lesser … The general principles that guide a court in determining the meaning and scope of a statutory provision are well established. As we explained in People v.