Case law

Williams v. State of California

34 Cal. 3d 18 · California Supreme Court · Jun 13, 1983

"Clearly plaintiff was dependent upon [the highway patrol officer] here. … Thus, "[u]nless the Legislature has clearly provided for immunity, the important societal goal of compensating injured parties for damages caused by willful or negligent acts must prevail." ( Ramos v.

People v. Preston

9 Cal. 3d 308 · California Supreme Court · Apr 5, 1973

The Fifth Amendment immunizes the accused from being required to incriminate himself. … The principles stated in Morrison (pp. 712-714) clearly refute defendant’s contention.

Myers v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc.

123 Cal. Rptr. 2d 40 · California Supreme Court · Aug 5, 2002

Just as federal courts apply the time-honored legal presumption that statutes operate prospectively “unless Congress has clearly manifested its intent to the contrary” (Hughes Aircraft Co. v. United States ex rel. … An established rule of statutory construction requires us to construe statutes to avoid “constitutional infirmities].” (United States v.

Hardy v. Vial

48 Cal. 2d 577 · California Supreme Court · May 24, 1957

This purpose, of course, was clearly within the scope of the official duties of the school defendants and within the protection of the immunity rule. … This purpose, of course, was clearly within the scope of the official duties of the school defendants and within the protection of the immunity rule." (Emphasis added.)

Ex Parte Koser

60 Cal. 177 · California Supreme Court · Mar 10, 1882

not apply to persons who, on Sunday, keep open hotels, boarding houses, barber shops, baths, markets, restaurants, taverns, livery stables or retail drug stores, for the legitimate business of each, or such manufacturing establishments … This was clearly a special law, and was properly held to be so. Every one engaged in any other calling or profession was permitted to labor.

Cosper v. Smith & Wesson Arms Co.

53 Cal. 2d 77 · California Supreme Court · Nov 20, 1959

This affidavit recites that Smith and Wesson, Inc., is a Massachusetts corporation with offices in Springfield and is not qualified to do business in this state; that it “has no agents, salesmen, or other employees residing … It is true that Smith and Wesson has been held to be immune from the service of process in this state. (Smith & Wesson, Inc. v. Municipal Court, 136 Cal.App.2d 673 [ 289 P.2d 26 ].)

Hassell v. Bird

234 Cal. Rptr. 3d 867 · California Supreme Court · Jul 2, 2018

Yelp also claims the Court of Appeal misread section 230(e)(3) by construing it to limit the broad immunity allegedly established by 230(c)(1). … So Berger, Ross, and Berry clearly establish that California courts may enforce an injunction against a nonparty.

Canales v. City of Alviso

3 Cal. 3d 118 · California Supreme Court · Sep 17, 1970

A contestant must establish that the outcome of the election was determined by virtue of the defect of which he complains if the contest is based upon illegal votes. (Elec. Code, § 20024.) … But First Amendment interests undoubtedly immunize election speeches which fall short of promises of employment conditioned on a certain vote. (Cf., e.g., Fort v.

Lipman v. Brisbane Elementary School District

55 Cal. 2d 224 · California Supreme Court · Jan 27, 1961

Because of important policy considerations, the rule has become established that government officials are not personally liable for their discretionary acts within the scope of their authority even though it is alleged that … The immunity of the agency from liability for discretionary conduct of its officials, however, is not coextensive with the immunity of the officials in all instances.

In re Hamilton

34 Cal. 464 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1868

Clearly not. The order directing letters to be issued to him, upon his qualifying in the manner provided in section seventy-two, was only one step towards his appointment. … His appointment was in fieri, until he had qualified, and received his letters. (Sec. 72.)

People v. Hunt

59 Cal. 430 · California Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1881

This affidavit was met by the affidavit of the juror, denying all the material statements contained in the affidavit of Walker; showing that he, Anderson, was a duly qualified and impartial juror in the case, and exonerating … It would have been error for the Court to have instructed the jury as to the degree of murder established by the evidence, and it was properly left to the jury to determine the degree. (People v.

In Re Gilstrap

171 Cal. 108 · California Supreme Court · Sep 30, 1915

That it did have such authority is so clearly the result of a previous ruling of this court (Emert v. Missouri, 156 U. S. 296 , [ 39 L. Ed. 430 , 15 Sup. Ct. … S. (15 Pet.) 445 , where it is said: “The office of a proviso, generally, is, either to except something from the enacting clause, or to qualify or restrain its generality, or to exclude some possible ground of misinterpretation

Ross v. RagingWire Telecommunications, Inc.

70 Cal. Rptr. 3d 382 · California Supreme Court · Jan 24, 2008

Because of his condition, plaintiff is a qualified individual with a disability under the FEHA and receives governmental disability benefits. … The legal principles that underlie such a claim are well established: Either party to a contract of employment without a specified *932 term may terminate the contract at will (Lab.

In Re Williams

7 Cal. 4th 572 · California Supreme Court · Apr 11, 1994

must be clearly limited; ... the proffered testimony must be clearly exculpatory; the testimony must be essential; and there must be no strong governmental interests which countervail against a grant of immunity .... … Immunity will be denied if the proffered testimony is found to be ambiguous, not clearly exculpatory, cumulative or it is found to relate only to the credibility of the government’s witnesses.’ ([Virgin Islands v.

Cabell v. State of California

67 Cal. 2d 150 · California Supreme Court · Jul 28, 1967

This rule by compelling analogy, is clearly applicable where the Legislature, as here, has indicated its intent to adopt a rule established by a judicial decision of another state. … Fote, supra , intended to greatly expand the immunity established by that case.

Ex parte Smith & Keating

38 Cal. 702 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1869

Primarily, it lies with the people, when they adopt their Constitution, or establish their form of government. … the judgment of the law-maker is quite as likely to be accurate and just as that of the law-expounder, and I, at least, do not consider myself privileged to review the finding of a body of men, who are, at least, as well qualified

Maldonado v. Superior Court

53 Cal. 4th 1112 · California Supreme Court · Apr 23, 2012

The issue in Chavez was whether, in the civil suit, the officer could assert the defense of *1128 qualified immunity for discretionary official actions taken in good faith that “[do] not violate clearly established statutory … Finding that the qualified immunity was available, six members of the Chavez court agreed that a “core” Fifth Amendment violation is completed, not merely by official extraction of self-incriminatory answers from one who

Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians v. Superior Court

52 Cal. Rptr. 3d 659 · California Supreme Court · Dec 21, 2006

The majority attempts to carve out an exception to the well-established rule that Indian tribes are immune from suit absent congressional authorization. … The majority does not claim that the United States Supreme Court is on the brink of abandoning this well-established doctrine of Indian sovereign immunity.

Imperial Water Co. v. Board of Supervisors

162 Cal. 14 · California Supreme Court · Jan 8, 1912

There is no merit in the claim that there were not a sufficient number of qualified petitioners. … They comprise a very small proportion of the district as finally established.

Kizer v. County of San Mateo

53 Cal. 3d 139 · California Supreme Court · Mar 28, 1991

The statutory scheme regulating nursing homes clearly contemplates that a single standard of care apply to all long-term skilled nursing facilities whether privately or publicly owned. … Clearly, the emphasis of the Tort Claims Act is on torts. 5 Professor Van Alstyne was a consultant to the California Law Review Commission during the drafting of the California Tort Claims Act of 1963. 6 Imposition of a class