Case law

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.

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

Hornblower v. Masonic Cemetery Assn.

191 Cal. 83 · California Supreme Court · Apr 27, 1923

The interest thus conveyed has been variously held to be “a fee with limited use,” “a base fee,” “a qualified fee,” “an easement,” “a license,” “a qualified and usufructuary right,” and “a privilege.” … Those are familiar and well-established principles of law, hardly requiring a citation of authorities for their vindication. ’ “But if what would otherwise be a mere license has for its object the permanent occupation of

Kaplan v. Superior Court

6 Cal. 3d 150 · California Supreme Court · Dec 1, 1971

Patterson then admitted he had agreed to be a witness for the prosecution in exchange for a promise of immunity by the district attorney; he reiterated, moreover, that but for the promise of immunity he would not have testified … His agreement to testify was admittedly the product of his arrest and search and of the district attorney's promise of immunity from the ensuing criminal charges, and it is established that "consent" induced by an illegal

McFadden v. Jordan

32 Cal. 2d 330 · California Supreme Court · Aug 3, 1948

Employment for gain dis *336 qualifies a pension recipient, but other income does not. … By the provision of section III of the measure that Indians “shall be entitled to qualify as electors.” B.

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

City of Salinas v. Souza & McCue Construction Co.

66 Cal. 2d 217 · California Supreme Court · Mar 21, 1967

The contention clearly is without merit. … Rep. (1963) Recommendation Relating to Sovereign Immunity, p. 817.)

Hartzell v. Connell

35 Cal. 3d 899 · California Supreme Court · Apr 20, 1984

Article I, section 7, subdivision (b) states in part: “A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens.” … Neither student qualified for the Modesto district’s waiver plan, which applied to all students whose families were recipients of AFDC benefits.

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.

People v. Oates

12 Cal. Rptr. 3d 325 · California Supreme Court · Apr 26, 2004

where there is only one qualifying injury, it could have said so. … Imposing multiple subdivision (d) enhancements under the circumstances here clearly serves these legislative goals.

Carter v. Commission on Qualifications of Judicial Appointments

14 Cal. 2d 179 · California Supreme Court · Aug 15, 1939

The petitioner relies on these well-established rules in support of his position. On the other hand, the right to occupy a public office, once assumed, should not be left in a state of uncertainty. … The adoption of section 26 of article VI has not repealed by implication or otherwise the following provisions of section 3 of the same article: “The Chief Justice and the Associate Justices shall be elected by the qualified

Khawar v. Globe International, Inc.

79 Cal. Rptr. 2d 178 · California Supreme Court · Dec 22, 1998

Even if some form of the privilege is constitutionally required, we are satisfied that any required privilege would not immunize defamatory statements about private figures like Khawar. … In any event, *280 we are satisfied that the evidence we previously reviewed, and which we have concluded clearly and convincingly establishes actual malice in the form of reckless disregard, is sufficient also to sustain

Gruenberg v. Aetna Insurance

9 Cal. 3d 566 · California Supreme Court · Jun 11, 1973

These cases establish the rule that, on an appeal by the plaintiff, the complaint will be construed against him.” (3 Witkin, op cit. supra, § 337, p. 2005.) … Code, § 47, subd. 2; Rest., Torts, § 587), and that the conduct of defendant law firm and its employee Ricketts is given the cloak of immunity under Civil Code section 47.

Pacific Coast Joint Stock Land Bank v. Roberts

16 Cal. 2d 800 · California Supreme Court · Dec 26, 1940

plaintiff, as to the time when it was mortgagee, had the right to redeem under said section 47 of the California Irrigation District Act, it is not appropriate to read into the emergency statutes any more than their language clearly … Other illustrations could be cited, but sufficient has been said to establish that the precise meaning of the word *806 “own” or “owner”, when not modified by other words indicating either qualified or absolute ownership,

People v. Bell

246 Cal. Rptr. 3d 527 · California Supreme Court · May 2, 2019

Defendant’s violent and prolonged outburst the previous afternoon had clearly disrupted the trial. … Moreover, any error in failing to instruct was clearly harmless.

Bollinger v. Bollinger

154 Cal. 695 · California Supreme Court · Dec 19, 1908

The above is clearly the effect of the testimony of David Bollinger, although not stated in his exact words. … “The evidence was sufficient to establish a trust, and the purposes, subject-matter and beneficiaries thereof. “VI.

State Board of Dry Cleaners v. Thrift-D-Lux Cleaners, Inc.

40 Cal. 2d 436 · California Supreme Court · Mar 10, 1953

That decision, however, is clearly distinguishable. … There is no reason to suppose that judges are better qualified than legislators to determine what social and economic programs should be adopted by the State of California.

Rooney v. Vermont Investment Corp.

10 Cal. 3d 351 · California Supreme Court · Nov 2, 1973

Two of these changes clearly were by way of enlargement: the provision was made applicable to all trial courts of record, that is, superior and municipal courts (Cal. Const., art. … Qualified traffic referees may also serve as court commissioners, and commissioners may act as traffic referees. (Gov. Code, §§ 72403, 72405.)

People v. Hovarter

44 Cal. 4th 983 · California Supreme Court · Aug 11, 2008

A trial court has broad discretion in determining whether a sufficient foundation has been laid to qualify evidence as a business record. … On appeal, we will reverse a trial court’s ruling on such a foundational question only if the court clearly abused its discretion.

Murray v. State Bar

40 Cal. 3d 575 · California Supreme Court · Dec 9, 1985

State Bar (1955) 45 Cal.2d 104, 111 [ 287 P.2d 761 ]), the lack of an evil intent does not immunize the attorney's conduct from a finding of moral turpitude." ( Fitzsimmons v. … In addition, the stipulated findings clearly establish that petitioner withdrew funds from the estate account as payment for his services without prior court approval. (8) "It is well settled that an attorney may not unilaterally