Case law

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

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.

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.”

D'Angona v. County of Los Angeles

27 Cal. 3d 661 · California Supreme Court · Jul 10, 1980

Once it is established that an action before the commission for the industrial injury is no bar to an action against the insurance doctor for malpractice, it would seem to follow that the employee does not lose his right … The relationship between a county which operates a public hospital and its patients clearly involves a different set of obligations from the hospital’s obligations toward its employees.

Collins v. Woodhams

174 Cal. 663 · California Supreme Court · Mar 20, 1917

The appellant has no interest in the estate except such as arises from the fact that he is the duly appointed and qualified executor of the will previously admitted to probate. … But these things do not of themselves establish the insanity that is essential to render a person incapable of making contracts or a will.

Committee to Defend Reproductive Rights v. Myers

29 Cal. 3d 252 · California Supreme Court · Mar 20, 1981

Third, the Medi-Cal program as qualified by the Budget Act restrictions clearly does not aid poor women who choose to bear children in a manner least offensive to the rights of those who choose abortion. … The challenged statutory scheme, then, clearly does not pass muster under the second part of the Bagley standard.

State Compensation Insurance Fund v. Industrial Accident Commission

38 Cal. 2d 659 · California Supreme Court · Mar 25, 1952

Code, § 4551), thus indicating clearly that misconduct on his part is not a defense. … No worker is immune to these pressures, and impacts upon temperament. They accumulate and explode over incidents trivial and important, personal and official.

Boling v. Public Employment Relations Board

236 Cal. Rptr. 3d 109 · California Supreme Court · Aug 2, 2018

The standard of review for PERB’s factual findings is established by statute. … PERB’s reading is not clearly erroneous. To the contrary, it is clearly correct.

California Ass'n of Health Facilities v. Department of Health Services

16 Cal. 4th 284 · California Supreme Court · Aug 7, 1997

and issued the following declaratory relief order: “When a citation is issued against a licensee for conduct which does not involve unreasonable conduct of an employee of the institution, the reasonable conduct defense clearly … He could contract away the daily operations of his business to independent contractors and become immune to disciplinary action by the licensing authority.”

Michael Todd Co. v. County of Los Angeles

57 Cal. 2d 684 · California Supreme Court · May 17, 1962

But there is nothing in the federal statute or in federal constitutional principles which renders such prop *690 erty interests immune from state taxation. (Fox Film Corp. v. … Code, § 111] makes immune from taxation all intangibles not included in the statutory definition.”

California Raisin Growers' Ass'n v. Abbott

160 Cal. 601 · California Supreme Court · Aug 25, 1911

The true rule is clearly stated by Selden, J., in Tracy v. Talmage, 14 N. Y. 176 , [ 67 Am. … This rule was properly qualified in the opinion of Comstock, J., on a motion for re-argument, wherein it was held that the principle did not apply to cases where the offense intended is of such enormity that no man having

People v. Letourneau

34 Cal. 2d 478 · California Supreme Court · Nov 29, 1949

Defendant put a question to the autopsy surgeon, a duly qualified physician, as to whether the manner in which the bodies were mutilated in the course of the killings would show an abnormal mind. … By sustaining the objection to the question put to the doctor, he is foreclosed from showing those very things that the majority criticizes him for failing to *500 establish.

Hall v. Committee of Bar Examiners

25 Cal. 3d 730 · California Supreme Court · Nov 27, 1979

The uncontradicted evidence of good moral character presented by Hall clearly establishes the requisite prima facie case. … We conclude that this evidence sufficiently establishes Hall’s prima facie case of good character.

Montgomery v. Meyerstein

195 Cal. 37 · California Supreme Court · Dec 5, 1924

“In this amendment,” says the court, “there is preserved the distinction between the mode of executing a common law judgment and a decree in equity”; and the court further proceeds to clearly indicate that the writ which … The fact that the *48 moving parties in a motion for such an order were for any reason not qualified to urge such motion would in nowise affect the duty of the court in this regard.

Valentine v. Jansen

1 Cal. Unrep. 530 · California Supreme Court · Apr 12, 1870

grantor, Brooks, at any time before the commencement of the action; and that it was likewise competent for him to show, as a part of the res gestae, the means whereby he acquired the possession; that in order to show and qualify … was the possession of Brooks in September, 1863, and that fact could only be legitimately established by showing: 1st.

Robinson v. Fair Employment & Housing Commission

2 Cal. 4th 226 · California Supreme Court · Mar 16, 1992

As a critical consequence, they stray from the course of "according significance, if possible, to every word" and render the qualifier "regularly" virtually meaningless in this context. … The majority construction as well reads the qualifier "regularly" out of section 12926(c).

Hubbart v. Superior Court

81 Cal. Rptr. 2d 492 · California Supreme Court · Jan 21, 1999

Each expert opined that Hubbart qualified as an SVP under section 6600. … Contrary to what Hubbart suggests, the statute clearly requires the trier of fact to find that an SVP is dangerous at the time of commitment.

People v. Trujillo

32 Cal. 2d 105 · California Supreme Court · Jun 15, 1948

Foakes, an accomplice and the youngest of the three, was promised immunity if he would testify against the other two. He told the jury that he escaped from the San Francisco Juvenile Detention Home on September 8th. … For the same reason, it is not necessary that the independent evidence be sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt.

Cannon v. Commission on Judicial Qualifications

14 Cal. 3d 678 · California Supreme Court · Jul 10, 1975

It appears, however, that all of such opinion evidence except, perhaps, the opinion that petitioner was a well-qualified and conscientious judge, has been established to the contrary by clear and convincing evidence in these … Petitioner has engaged in a course of conduct which has maligned the judicial office and clearly establishes her lack of temperament and ability to perform judicial functions in an even-handed manner.

Bloom v. Municipal Court

16 Cal. 3d 71 · California Supreme Court · Feb 6, 1976

Although no longer spelling it out in so many words, article VI still clearly provides that Courts of Appeal have jurisdiction over appeals from superior court judgments in prohibition proceedings. … Whatever the scope of the ‘right to receive’ referred to in Stanley , it is not so broad as to immunize the dealings in obscenity in which Reidel engaged here [distributing it by mail]—dealings that Roth held unprotected