Case law

Fox v. City of Los Angeles

22 Cal. 3d 792 · California Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1978

Mere display of the cross is clearly not a religious service. By no means, though, should we infer that it is not action respecting an establishment of religion. … This fact clearly distinguishes this case from Mandel v. Hodges, supra, 54 Cal.

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

Broadway Laguna, Vallejo Ass'n v. Board of Permit Appeals

66 Cal. 2d 767 · California Supreme Court · May 26, 1967

The board's characterization of any resulting difficulty or hardship as automatically “unnecessary” in this ease must stand or fall with the broad notion that a variance applicant may earn immunity from one code provision … The board’s findings in this case completely fail to establish compliance with this “parity” requirement.

Martinez v. Socoma Companies, Inc.

20 Cont. Cas. Fed. 83,050 · California Supreme Court · May 1, 1974

The benefits to be derived from defendants’ performance were clearly intended not as gifts from the government to such persons but as a means of executing the public purposes stated in the contracts and *398 in the underlying … Clearly the Government (the promisee) at no time bore any legal duty toward plaintiffs to provide the benefits set forth in the contracts and plaintiffs do not claim to be creditor beneficiaries.

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.

People v. Saling

7 Cal. 3d 844 · California Supreme Court · Sep 5, 1972

Jerry Carnes was granted immunity from prosecution and testified that sometime in the latter part of July 1969 Murphy telephoned him and asked whether he wanted to make some money by “roughing up” a person who owed Murphy … In so doing we also observe that undisputed evidence at Murphy’s trial establishes that the date on which the murder occurred was August 22.

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

Hopping v. Council of City of Richmond

170 Cal. 605 · California Supreme Court · Jul 22, 1915

If a district has to be created over an area of the state the legislature must create it, and establish its limits. … The resolutions of the Richmond city council come within the principles established by these authorities.

French v. Senate

146 Cal. 604 · California Supreme Court · Apr 28, 1905

There is no averment that the manner of the proceeding was contrary to the rules established. … It cannot tie its own hands by establishing rules which, as a ihatter of power purely, it cannot at any time change and disregard.

Brenham v. Story

39 Cal. 179 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1870

Holman ( 16 Peters, 25 ), a sale made by an administratrix under a special Act was sustained, on the - principle established in Wilkinson, v. Leland (supra.) Florentine v. … It is clearly an attempt to use the office of administrator to speculate Avith the estate of the heirs, and not to administer the estate of the deceased. This is plainly beyond the power of an administrator, as such.

Lundberg v. County of Alameda

46 Cal. 2d 644 · California Supreme Court · Jun 6, 1956

And in other jurisdictions it has been held that nonprofit educational institutions maintained for the benefit of the public qualify as charitable organizations for the purpose of tax exemption. … The court stated, “The wide and varied nature of the exemption thus provided rather clearly indicates a purpose and intention to give the words here in question a broad rather than a strict meaning. ...” ( 24 Cal.2d at p.

Geibel v. State Bar

11 Cal. 2d 412 · California Supreme Court · Jun 23, 1938

Although not clearly shown, it is to be inferred that the tax titles to the Silver Strand tract lots were also transferred to the trustees. Thereafter the three federal court actions were brought by the Bit B. Fowler. … In fact, Geibel, as attorney of record, subsequently brought an action on behalf of the Stockholders Petroleum Corporation to establish its interest in said lands.

Ex parte Kearny

55 Cal. 212 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1880

People, 9th Mich. 111: “The Constitution, in apportioning the judicial power, as well as affirming the immunity of life, liberty, and property, has always *218 been understood to guarantee to each citizen the right to have … If, however, it should even be admitted that it might be established by proof aliunde that the petitioner was tried and convicted of an offense of which the-inferior court had jurisdiction, no evidence of any kind to establish

Seiterle v. Superior Court

57 Cal. 2d 397 · California Supreme Court · Mar 15, 1962

We cannot say that it clearly appears that it did not; and in view of petitioner's plea of guilty to the several charges and of the positive evidence of physical harm to her husband from being tied in a similar fashion, and … Each of the crimes of the defendant in the hypothetical case would require a separate act; hence, under the Chapman rule, each could be charged and separately punished; the defendant would gain no immunity from punishment

People v. Edwards

163 Cal. 752 · California Supreme Court · Sep 23, 1912

It is thus clearly shown that the law contemplates that all the challenges for cause, including the examination of jurors preparatory thereto and upon the trial thereof, shall be disposed of before any peremptory challenges … This qualified him as a juror under section 1076 of the Penal Code.

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.

People v. Louis

42 Cal. 3d 969 · California Supreme Court · Dec 11, 1986

Tolbert’s testimony, however, was not immune to challenge. Significant internal inconsistencies were evident. … These established rules reflect the policy concerns that properly underlie standard of review jurisprudence generally. *986 “[The] mandate that appellate courts not disturb a trial court’s findings of fact unless clearly

Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. Penny S.

59 Cal. Rptr. 3d 460 · California Supreme Court · Jun 7, 2007

The notice in this case clearly met this requirement by identifying the juvenile court’s order of “August 28, 2003 terminating jurisdiction in this matter.” … a cooperative assistance program under which counties provide payments to foster care providers on behalf of qualified children in foster care, using a combination of federal, state, and county funds.

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

Kaplan's Fruit & Produce Co. v. Superior Court

26 Cal. 3d 60 · California Supreme Court · Dec 14, 1979

Garmon, supra, 359 U.S. 236, 244-245 [ 3 L.Ed.2d 775, 782-783 ]); here Kaplan’s seeks only to enjoin obstruction of access, a clearly unprotected activity. … The original bill, drafted by union attorneys, clearly sought to limit the injunctive jurisdiction of the superior court.