Case law

People v. Gonzales

56 Cal. 4th 353 · California Supreme Court · Mar 18, 2013

Past cases establish that a person seeking to invoke the psychotherapist- patient privilege has the initial burden of establishing the basic facts to show that the privilege is presumptively applicable — in general, that … The Law Revision Commission comments accompanying the initial enactment of the psychotherapist-patient privilege, quoted above, make this point clearly. (Cal. Law Revision Com com., Deering‟s Ann. Evid.

Melone v. Ruffino

129 Cal. 514 · California Supreme Court · Aug 14, 1900

It is, in effect, an admission as to that balance of an original liability, and throws the burden of establishing the payment upon the defendant.” … The only case that can be considered at all in point as establishing the opposite doctrine is that of Farmers’ etc. Bank v.

People v. Musselwhite

17 Cal. 4th 1216 · California Supreme Court · May 7, 1998

The burden of demonstrating an abuse of discretion rests with the party seeking severance—here defendant—who must “ ‘clearly establish’ ” a “ ‘substantial danger of prejudice requiring that the charges be separately tried … It is also well established that the felony-murder special circumstances (§ 190.2, subd.

City of Santa Cruz v. Municipal Court

49 Cal. 3d 74 · California Supreme Court · Jul 27, 1989

(b)); (2) establish a procedure for in camera inspection by the court prior to any disclosure (§ 1045, subd. … (Black’s Law Dict., supra, at p. 701; see also Ballantine’s Law Dict., supra, at p. 1324 [“Qualifying a statement as made, not as a fact, but as believed to be true from information.”].)

Lawless v. Calaway

24 Cal. 2d 81 · California Supreme Court · Apr 6, 1944

It clearly appears that although defendant at all times considered the possibility of appendicitis, he concluded, as a result of his examination, the presence of certain symptoms including diarrhea, and the history of the … The only witnesses who appeared and could have qualified as experts were Dr. Morgan and the defendant. Dr.

Rico v. Mitsubishi Motors Corp.

68 Cal. Rptr. 3d 758 · California Supreme Court · Dec 13, 2007

Here, it is true that Yukevich’s notes were not so clearly flagged as confidential as were the forms in State Fund, supra, 70 Cal.App.4th 644 . … Johnson’s own admissions and subsequent conduct clearly demonstrate that he violated the State Fund rule.

McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court of Kern Cnty.

227 Cal. Rptr. 3d 191 · California Supreme Court · Jan 18, 2018

Target Corp., supra, 59 Cal.4th at pp. 326–327 [giving other examples where the Legislature clearly but implicitly abrogated the common law].) … It does not mean that the parties are necessarily immune from liability for failing to take swifter action when circumstances dictate.

In Re Horton

54 Cal. 3d 82 · California Supreme Court · Aug 12, 1991

The clerk’s and reporter’s transcripts prepared in the course of petitioner’s trial establish these further facts. … Petitioner places great weight on federal authority establishing the primacy of article III courts. (U.S. Const., art. III.)

DuBois v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

5 Cal. 4th 382 · California Supreme Court · Jun 28, 1993

In 1971, the California Legislature created the UEF in order to provide a source of funds for injured workers whose employers have failed or refused *389 either to obtain workers’ compensation insurance coverage or to qualify … Appeals Bd. (1978) 22 Cal.3d 658, 668-669 [ 150 Cal.Rptr. 250 , 586 P.2d 564 ] [agency interpretation entitled to significant respect upon judicial review]), and the general immunity afforded governmental entities (such as

People v. Webster

54 Cal. 3d 411 · California Supreme Court · Aug 30, 1991

The evidence here establishes without dispute that there was no actual physical concealment of defendant’s person from the victim. The lying-in-wait special-circumstance finding is legally unsupported as well. … Otherwise, it would “immunize” each and every denial of a substitution motion that does not “ ‘substantially impair’ the defendant’s right to assistance of counsel”—no matter how unreasonable any such denial might in fact

People v. Sánchez

63 Cal. 4th 411 · California Supreme Court · Jun 23, 2016

Additionally, the record clearly establishes nondiscriminatory reasons for the two challenges that dispel any inference of bias. … Additionally, the record clearly establishes nondiscriminatory reasons for challenging T.M.

City of Manhattan Beach v. Cortelyou

10 Cal. 2d 653 · California Supreme Court · Feb 15, 1938

Each description is further qualified by the statement that “Colored portion only dedicated and recorded by this map”. … This is very clearly illustrated in the case of F. A. Hihn Co. v.

County of Riverside v. Superior Court

118 Cal. Rptr. 2d 167 · California Supreme Court · Mar 28, 2002

But a law established for a public reason cannot be contravened by a private agreement.” … Code, § 3301), was clearly “established for a public reason.” (Civ. Code, § 3513.)

Diamond v. Bland

11 Cal. 3d 331 · California Supreme Court · Apr 25, 1974

We conclude that Lloyd is indistinguishable from the instant case and, accordingly, that we must reappraise our Diamond decision in the light of the principles established in Lloyd. … It bears repeated emphasis that we do not have under consideration the property or privacy rights of an individual homeowner or the proprietor of a modest retail establishment.

State of South Dakota v. Brown

20 Cal. 3d 765 · California Supreme Court · Mar 20, 1978

The California law on the point was established very early by a case which, although it was decided before both Dennison and Taylor , nonetheless anticipated their results and clearly recognized that in California mandate … It is well established that states may agree among themselves to deliver up persons whose rendition is not required by the Extradition Cláuse (Innes v.

Kapellas v. Kofman

1 Cal. 3d 20 · California Supreme Court · Oct 24, 1969

This court has in the past consistently held that allegations of malice similar to those set forth above defeated the qualified privilege of section 47. (Maidman v. … Hill, supra, 385 U.S. 374 , a case involving a variant of the right to privacy dealing with “fictionalization,” the United States Supreme Court found that the Constitution, of its own force, establishes a qualified privilege

Miramar Co. v. City of Santa Barbara

23 Cal. 2d 170 · California Supreme Court · Nov 3, 1943

These cases are clearly distinguishable from the case at bar. … That conclusion is clearly erroneous. The claim statute is clearly related to and contemplates only those liabilities created by the 1923 Public Liability Act (Stats. 1923, p. 675; Leering’s Gen.

People ex rel. Attorney General v. Provines

34 Cal. 520 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1868

that they shall be created and established by the Legislature, and there drops the subject. “ The Legislature shall establish a system of county and'town governments, which shall be as nearly uniform as practicable throughout … Certainly not of town, city, village or county governments, which it does not undertake to organize, which are not being established, but are to be established hereafter by a body which the Constitution is at the time creating

People v. Clancey

56 Cal. 4th 562 · California Supreme Court · Apr 18, 2013

the information then available and regardless of whether guilt is established by plea or at trial. … By requiring that the record clearly reflect the court‟s understanding that the indicated sentence would apply regardless of whether guilt was established by plea or at trial, we presume that courts will not abuse their extraordinary

People v. Clark

California Supreme Court · Feb 22, 2024

Similarly, some gangs may have loosely defined goals and principles, while others may have clearly defined missions. Given this variability, collective engagement will be established in different ways. … For reasons we have explained, we do not agree; to establish collective engagement, the prosecution should have established a nexus between the offenses and the gang as a collective enterprise.