Case law

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.

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.

People Ex Rel. Levin v. County of Santa Clara

37 Cal. 2d 335 · California Supreme Court · May 28, 1951

Assuming, then, that a substantial compliance with our constitutional provisions is sufficient, the facts presented by the record before us clearly show such substantial compliance. … The situation in that case is clearly distinguishable.

Van Arsdale v. Hollinger

68 Cal. 2d 245 · California Supreme Court · Feb 21, 1968

The latter part of the instruction, when given without qualification in the circumstances of this case, is clearly erroneous, however, because when read with the introductory part of the instruction, it tells the jury that … Plaintiff also urges that the court erred in refusing to instruct that the city was an employer as a matter of law and that certain sections of the Labor Code establishing safety rules were therefore applicable to it.

Cole v. Rush

45 Cal. 2d 345 · California Supreme Court · Oct 28, 1955

Other cases, from other jurisdictions, relied upon by plaintiffs are clearly distinguishable on their facts, even if it be assumed that upon similar facts action would lie in California. For example, Cherbonnier v. … The significance of a denial in any particular ease is also to be understood as further qualified by the fact that under the Buies on Appeal a denial may mean no more than that a ground which we deem adequate or impellent

Messenger v. Messenger

46 Cal. 2d 619 · California Supreme Court · Jun 6, 1956

A similar provision related to the husband, except that his waiver of all right to future support and maintenance was not qualified by the clause, “except - as herein otherwise expressly provided.” … Proc., § 1858) and *629 thereby abrogate the clearly expressed agreement of the parties.

Pearl v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

109 Cal. Rptr. 2d 308 · California Supreme Court · Jul 19, 2001

for such a disability, a peace officer “shall receive a disability allowance of 50 percent of his or her final compensation plus an annuity purchased with his or her accumulated additional contributions, if any, or, if qualified … Nor does Labor Code section 3208.3 clearly state that it applies to claims of psychiatric injury in matters under the Public Employees’ Retirement Law, or otherwise indicate on its face that it supersedes the standard under

Sayre v. Nichols

7 Cal. 535 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1857

So, if a" party append to his name the word “ agent,” he clearly designates the capacity in which he acts, and he thus designates such capacity for the evident purpose of showing that he intends to bind himself only in that … Hinde, that the drawer of a bill of exchange “ may, like an endorser, add to his signature restrictive or qualifying words, to exempt himself from personal liability.” “ The acceptor of a bill of exchange, like the maker

Wells v. Lloyd

21 Cal. 2d 452 · California Supreme Court · Dec 23, 1942

An appellate court’s decision on the sufficiency of evidence comes clearly within the doctrine. (Berry v. Maywood Mut. W. Co. No. … In referring to fraud, the trial judge took care to add the qualifying words “if any,” and in instruction 36 expressly cautioned the jury that the existence of fraud could be determined only from the evidence and could not

People v. Garceau

6 Cal. 4th 140 · California Supreme Court · Nov 18, 1993

The challenged evidence clearly was supportive of the prosecution’s theory that the victims had been brutally murdered. (See People v. … Yet, the record clearly fails to establish, as a matter of law, that the killings were a “reasonably foreseeable” consequence of the methamphetamine manufacturing operation conducted on the Rambos’ property.

American National Insurance v. Fair Employment & Housing Commission

32 Cal. 3d 603 · California Supreme Court · Oct 21, 1982

There was absolutely no evidence to qualify the employer’s physician as a heart specialist. … The law clearly was designed to prevent employers from acting arbitrarily against physical condition that, whether actually or potentially handicapping, may present no current job disability or job-related health risk.

Cooper v. State Bar

43 Cal. 3d 1016 · California Supreme Court · Sep 10, 1987

That exemption is clearly applicable to State Bar disciplinary proceedings. … The record does not establish that neither M.L.M. nor the medical group was harmed. The record does establish that in the M.F.N. matter, the medical group suffered a loss.

People v. Schoon

177 Cal. 678 · California Supreme Court · Mar 6, 1918

His examination showed him to be absolutely qualified in all respects to serve as a juror. … W., he would require the state to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt before he would convict, he would presume him innocent until the evidence established his guilt.

De Leonis v. Walsh

140 Cal. 175 · California Supreme Court · Sep 10, 1903

Defendant administrator qualified as such administrator on October 3, 1901, and on October 10, 1901, was substituted as defendant in place of said deceased. … These two findings sufficiently established plaintiff’s right to *181 a reconveyance upon payment of the amount specified, and render many of the other findings immaterial.

J. F. Parkinson Co. v. Building Trades Council

154 Cal. 581 · California Supreme Court · Dec 8, 1908

His claim was disputed and was clearly untenable. … This conclusion was based upon evidence which showed clearly enough what appears as clearly in this case — that the immediate object of the defendants was to exclude the competition of men outside of their unions.

San Diegans for Open Gov. v. Public Facilities Financing etc.

California Supreme Court · Dec 26, 2019

by the qualifier “to any proceeding” on one occasion (§ 1091.4, subd. (b)) and by the qualifier “to litigation” on another (§ 1091, subd. (b)(15)). … Indeed, such an addition would not have been clearly surplusage.

Brown v. Superior Court

44 Cal. 3d 1049 · California Supreme Court · Mar 31, 1988

If some method could be devised to confine the benefit of the comment k negligence standard to those drugs that have proved useful to mankind while denying the privilege to those that are clearly harmful, it would deserve … L.Rev. 734, 753-754.) 9 It is well established that a manufacturer fulfills its duty to warn if it provides adequate warning to the physician. (See, e.g., Davis v.

In re E.J.

47 Cal. 4th 1258 · California Supreme Court · Feb 1, 2010

(a)) — in which some events occurred before the statute’s effective date, but others clearly occurred afterwards. (People v. Grant, supra, 20 Cal.4th at p. 153 .) … The intent of Proposition 83 was to impose further restrictions on registered sex offenders based on the conduct that had led to their qualifying convictions. Thus, the analogy to Mills fails.

Serrano v. Priest

5 Cal. 3d 584 · California Supreme Court · Aug 30, 1971

Since a tax rate of $1 per $100 there would produce $870 per elementary student, Beverly Hills is far too rich to qualify for equalizing aid. … Section 21 states: “No special privileges or immunities shall ever be granted which may not be altered, revoked, or repealed by the Legislature; nor shall any citizen, or class of citizens, be granted privileges or immunities

Luque v. McLean

8 Cal. 3d 136 · California Supreme Court · Oct 17, 1972

The result would be to immunize from strict liability manufacturers who callously ignore patent dangers in their products while subjecting to such liability those who innocently market products with latent defects. … Under this standard, the trial judge’s exclusion of the articles from Reader’s Digest, Today’s Health and Consumer Bulletin was clearly proper, because none of those periodicals constitute the type of professional technical