Case law

Harman v. City and County of San Francisco

7 Cal. 3d 150 · California Supreme Court · May 15, 1972

An examination of established appraisal doctrine will illustrate its fallacy. … In some cases, ‘highest and best use’ has been qualified to mean the ‘most likely use’ over a period of years.”

Howell v. Budd

91 Cal. 342 · California Supreme Court · Sep 22, 1891

Rep. 192 , the application to respondent for a transfer of the cause was clearly insufficient; yet we understand respondent, being desirous of an adjudication of the cause upon its merits, to have waived his objection to … discussion here, the supreme court of the United States, after an exhaustive reAÚeAV of the English authorities upon the question, said: “ It may therefore, as the result of these authorities, be safely assumed to be the established

Heron v. Riley

209 Cal. 507 · California Supreme Court · May 31, 1930

The general subject need not appear in the title, if it is clearly disclosed or readily inferred from the details expressed. (Hill v. … App. 89 [ 148 Pac. 950 ], so strongly relied on in support of the argument that the present act is unconstitutional, is clearly distinguishable.

Hi-Voltage Wire Works, Inc. v. City of San Jose

101 Cal. Rptr. 2d 653 · California Supreme Court · Nov 30, 2000

To qualify as a “responsible bidder,” a contractor had to meet or exceed this goal or demonstrate “reasonable efforts” to obtain MBE/WBE participation. … In Furnco, supra, 438 U.S. at page 579 [98 S.Ct. at pages 2950-2951], the Supreme Court made clear, “A racially balanced work force cannot immunize an employer from liability for specific acts of discrimination.”

People v. Chavez

37 Cal. 2d 656 · California Supreme Court · Aug 10, 1951

No promises of immunity or threats were made to him. … Moreover, the jury was clearly and emphatically told that any doubt as to the degree of the crime must be resolved in favor of Chavez.

Kulchar v. Kulchar

1 Cal. 3d 467 · California Supreme Court · Dec 23, 1969

Allen (1961) 189 Cal.App.2d 753, 757-760 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 630 ]); and mistaken belief as to immunity from suit (Bartell v. … The evidence in the present case establishes that it is a case in which a party “failed to assemble all his evidence at the trial.”

People v. Morris

California Supreme Court · May 4, 2026

In this way, subdivision (e)’s preamble already requires participation in a qualifying felony and it then lists three subparts with additional requirements for establishing felony-murder liability. … or substantially similar language, the usual presumption is that the Legislature intended the same construction, unless a contrary intent clearly appears.”

Cooper v. State Bd. of Medical Examiners

35 Cal. 2d 242 · California Supreme Court · Apr 28, 1950

Inasmuch as the performing of a blood transfusion clearly involves the "penetrating ... of the tissues of human beings," it appears that the administration of such transfusion by petitioner did constitute the practicing of … the practice of medicine in this community and elsewhere were established *257 beyond dispute.

California State Automobile Ass'n Inter-Insurance Bureau v. Jackson

9 Cal. 3d 859 · California Supreme Court · Aug 7, 1973

Thus the Department’s recovery pursuant to section 14117 of the benefits provided by it subserves the general purpose and intent of the Legislature in establishing the California Medical Assistance Program which declares … Clearly in an action for damages brought directly by Jackson against the negligent third-party motorist, the Department could have joined as a party plaintiff or intervened (Lab.

People v. Frye

18 Cal. 4th 894 · California Supreme Court · Jul 30, 1998

In October 1985, she entered into a written immunity agreement with the Amador County District Attorney. … Such evidence clearly has no bearing on any aspect of defendant’s record or character. (Cf. People v.

People v. McDermott

123 Cal. Rptr. 2d 654 · California Supreme Court · Oct 30, 2002

Marvin Lee, who was in custody for an unrelated offense, was granted immunity for the murder of Eldridge in exchange for his confession and truthful testimony. … In August 1986, Dondell Lee was granted immunity while in the custody of the California Youth Authority.

Ducey v. Argo Sales Co.

25 Cal. 3d 707 · California Supreme Court · Nov 21, 1979

As we shall explain, these authorities clearly demonstrate that when, as in this case, the state has actual or constructive notice of a “dangerous condition” on a public highway, the state bears an affirmative obligation … The state recognizes that if the condition of its property creates a substantial risk of injury even when the property is used with due care, the state gains *719 no immunity from liability simply because, in a particular

McClain v. Sav-On Drugs

244 Cal. Rptr. 3d 138 · California Supreme Court · Mar 4, 2019

The remedy, we said, “is clearly mandated by the Board’s duty to protect the integrity of the sales tax by ensuring that the customers receive their refunds. … Nothing in the sales tax statutes establishes that consumers have a vested right to applicable exemptions.

People v. Thomas

41 Cal. 3d 837 · California Supreme Court · May 22, 1986

We are unwilling to impute to a criminal defendant the knowledge that the only burglary qualifying as a serious felony is a residential burglary.” (Pp. 149-150.) … Contrary to defendant’s claim, it is clearly not the case that a defendant cannot be charged under a statute until all its uncertainties have been cured by judicial interpretation— especially when he does not claim that his

Kulchar v. Kulchar

1 Cal. 3d 467 · California Supreme Court · Dec 23, 1969

Allen (1961) 189 Cal.App.2d 753, 757-760 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 630 ]); and mistaken belief as to immunity from suit (Bartell v. … The evidence in the present case establishes that it is a case in which a party “failed to assemble all his evidence at the trial.”

People v. Honeycutt

29 Cal. 2d 52 · California Supreme Court · Sep 20, 1946

Honeycutt, this statement has been made freely and voluntarily without any promise of reward or *58 immunity or any threat or force or violence used on you? A. Yes, I asked to make the statement, didn’t I? Q. … The last two quoted sentences are clearly erroneous.

Campbell v. Graham-Armstrong

9 Cal. 3d 482 · California Supreme Court · May 17, 1973

In any event, they were on duty for the additional time required of them under the rules laid down by the governing board and, accordingly, unquestionably qualify as full-time employees. In Meyer v. … Board of Trustees, 195 Cal.App.2d 420 [ 15 Cal.Rptr. 717 ], the plaintiff, a teacher, sought to establish that he had acquired tenure.

Simmons v. California Institute of Technology

34 Cal. 2d 264 · California Supreme Court · Sep 16, 1949

Here there was a total rescission of the provisions relating to the Institute, and they are clearly severable from the terms and conditions applicable to Baldwin. … [as to joinder of necessary parties] is one of equity, it is limited and qualified by considerations of fairness, convenience, and practicality.

Price v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.

42 Cal. 2d 577 · California Supreme Court · Mar 31, 1954

Otherwise the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is meaningless. … The very phraseology of the statute under which this motion is filed clearly demonstrates the logic of this conclusion.

People v. Watts

198 Cal. 776 · California Supreme Court · Jun 24, 1926

The objection that he was not shown to be qualified should have been interposed to the last question — the one which asked him whether it was human hair. … Nor was he prejudiced by the third passage above quoted, even though it does omit the qualifying words “as alleged in the information.”