Case law

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

Kershaw v. Tilbury

214 Cal. 679 · California Supreme Court · Jan 27, 1932

The qualifying questions were sufficient to establish the competency of the several medical *692 doctors offered as witnesses by the plaintiff by reason of the fact that their education and experience was such as to qualify … Nevertheless, we think that taking all of the circumstances together the award of $30,000 damages is clearly excessive, and appears to be based' upon the shortcomings of defendant rather than the actual' injuries sustained

Witty v. Clinch

207 Cal. 779 · California Supreme Court · Aug 15, 1929

The evidence clearly shows that the respondent had no actual knowledge of the true consideration of said note and mortgage. … This rule is well established and generally accepted. It is stated in 1 Cal.

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.

People v. Blacksher

52 Cal. 4th 769 · California Supreme Court · Aug 25, 2011

Rosenthal‘s report only established that defendant was willing to cooperate with his attorney, but failed to establish that defendant was able to assist his defense counsel in a rational manner. … Second, defendant‘s objections during the prosecutor‘s closing argument were clearly not made on Fifth Amendment grounds.

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.

Perry v. Brown

52 Cal. 4th 1116 · California Supreme Court · Nov 17, 2011

Decisions of the United States Supreme Court clearly establish that “a State has standing to defend the constitutionality of its statute.” (Diamond v. Charles, supra, 476 U.S. 54, 62 ; see also Maine v. … Taylor (1986) 477 U.S. 131, 137 [ 91 L.Ed.2d 110 , 106 S.Ct. 2440 ] [“a State clearly has a legitimate interest in the continued enforceability of its own statutes . . .”].)

Siegal v. Superior Court

68 Cal. 2d 97 · California Supreme Court · Jan 23, 1968

These provisions are unambiguous and clearly state that there is no effective determination of the motion until the actual entry of an order in the permanent minutes, or the signing and filing of a written order, i.e., a … The provision above quoted requiring an order granting a new trial on the ground of insufficiency to specify this in writing and to be filed with the clerk within 10 days after the motion is granted qualifies the general

San Francisco Fire Fighters Local 798 v. City & County of San Francisco

42 Cal. Rptr. 3d 868 · California Supreme Court · May 18, 2006

But “that determination or action” clearly refers back to the beginning of the second paragraph. What is not subject to arbitration, inter alia, is an “action” “to ensure compliance with anti-discrimination laws.” … A small grouping will have the opposite effect, increasing the chance that a qualified candidate will be erroneously excluded.

Associated Constr. & Eng'g v. WORKERS'COMP. APP. BD.

22 Cal. 3d 829 · California Supreme Court · Dec 19, 1978

Applying the principle that the employer and third party should, to the extent consistent with the employer's statutory immunity from tort liability, share the burden of the employee's recovery as joint tortfeasors, we conclude … Elaborate evidentiary presentations may be avoided when the benefits assessed against the employer are clearly insufficient to merit a credit.

deSaulles v. Community Hospital of the Monterey Peninsula

62 Cal. 4th 1140 · California Supreme Court · Mar 10, 2016

The statute provides that “unless the context clearly requires otherwise,” the term “ ‘ [prevailing party’ includes the party with a net monetary recovery, a defendant in whose favor a dismissal is entered, a defendant where … By precluding consideration of settlement proceeds as a ‘net monetary recovery’ when a dismissal is entered in favor of the defendant, only one party qualifies for a mandatory award of costs, consistent with the prior law

City of Moorpark v. Superior Court

18 Cal. 4th 1143 · California Supreme Court · Aug 17, 1998

I The Legislature clearly envisioned at least some circumstances in which workers injured on the job could pursue both workers’ compensation remedies and remedies under FEHA and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 … In 1993, the Legislature amended Labor Code section 139.6, part of the workers’ compensation law, to add the language italicized below: “(a) The administrative director shall establish and effect within the Division of Workers

Loeffler v. Target Corporation

58 Cal. 4th 1081 · California Supreme Court · May 1, 2014

But the fact that the retailer has no further tax liability does not mean it is immunized from liability under the consumer protection statutes. … The court’s ruling, though erroneous, need not be read to broadly establish that a consumer action may never go forward if it involves a tax issue.

Scholle v. Finnell

167 Cal. 90 · California Supreme Court · Jan 16, 1914

The evidence clearly explains why they were not recorded at the time they bore date and all were recorded within three months after they were delivered. … As it was clearly established by the evidence that the deeds to Simpson were for a valuable consideration, the only other question was upon the intent with which they were made—whether fraudulent or not.

State Compensation Insurance Fund v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

40 Cal. 3d 5 · California Supreme Court · Oct 17, 1985

Thus, the penultimate paragraph establishes a fourth factor necessary to rebut the presumption. … Applicant was clearly acting as an independent contractor without a license. Contracting without a license is a misdemeanor. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 7028.)

People v. Davis

29 Cal. 3d 814 · California Supreme Court · Aug 31, 1981

The above facts constitute a substantial evidentiary basis for the trial court’s conclusion that probable cause was established. … As noted above, however, the Legislature has since 1921 immunized minors from the death penalty, thereby fixing their punishment for first degree murder at life imprisonment with the possibility of parole.

People v. Townsel

63 Cal. 4th 25 · California Supreme Court · Apr 21, 2016

Coleman qualified to testify as an expert on intellectual disability and related intelligence and psychological testing Evidence Code section 720 provides that a ―person is qualified … Whether the conclusion is based upon observation of an act, condition or event or upon sound reason or whether the person forming it is qualified to form it and testify to it can only be established by the examination of

California Canning Peach Growers v. Williams

11 Cal. 2d 233 · California Supreme Court · Apr 22, 1938

Owners of ranches not renting their orchards were not qualified to come under the resolution. Owners were admissible to *240 the association only under a regular marketing agreement. … Those cases clearly establish that as to owner members the interests of every member rest upon the same foundation, and no such member can secure an advantage to the injury of any other member.

East Bay Municipal Utility District v. Department of Public Works

1 Cal. 2d 476 · California Supreme Court · Sep 11, 1934

It is hereby declared to be the established policy of this state that the use of water for domestic purposes is the highest use of water and that the next highest use is for irrigation. … Clearly, the manner in which the unappropriated waters of the streams of the state shall be distributed among the applicants therefor involves questions of policy, and the legislature, in the interest of the public welfare

American Securities Co. v. Forward

220 Cal. 566 · California Supreme Court · Apr 23, 1934

The city council of the city initiated the proceedings and all of the steps taken thereafter in carrying the improvement to completion were taken by it or under its direction or by officers of the city, including the establishment … This duty is neither qualified nor limited by other provisions.