Case law

People v. California Fish Co.

166 Cal. 576 · California Supreme Court · Dec 20, 1913

The reason of the decision is not very clearly stated in the opinion. … to be qualified and having the prior claim is entitled to purchase.

People v. Hatch

92 Cal. Rptr. 2d 80 · California Supreme Court · Jan 31, 2000

Hatch also presented Deborah Kilgore, a registered nurse and qualified expert on sexual assault. Kilgore testified that Doratee L.’s injuries were not serious and were consistent with first-time consensual intercourse. … Because the record here does not clearly indicate such an intent, no double jeopardy bar to retrial exists.

Senior v. Anderson

115 Cal. 496 · California Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1896

The rule established in Simmons v. … Senior, but it was qualified so as to express what he was personally willing to do, and would advise the corporation to accept.

Fellows v. National Enquirer, Inc.

42 Cal. 3d 234 · California Supreme Court · Jul 31, 1986

This court reversed the trial court’s order with respect to the two libel counts, finding plaintiff’s allegation of malice sufficient to overcome the qualified privilege granted by Civil Code section 47, subdivision 3, and … It is not unreasonable therefore to require proof of special damages to establish a cause of action.” In Werner v. Southern Cal. etc.

Varjabedian v. City of Madera

20 Cal. 3d 285 · California Supreme Court · Dec 9, 1977

Alisal Sanitary Dist. (1957) 154 Cal.App.2d 720 [ 317 P.2d 33 ].) 12 Moreover, plaintiffs’ complaint which includes, inter alia, the claim that their land was made “untenantable for residential purposes” is clearly sufficient … If a plaintiff can establish that his property has suffered a “direct and peculiar and substantial” burden as a result of recurring odors produced by a sewage facility—that he has, as in Richards , been in effect “singled

Californians for Disability Rights v. Mervyn's, LLC

39 Cal. 4th 223 · California Supreme Court · Jul 24, 2006

CDR, arguing the new standing provisions do not apply to pending cases, relies on the “well-established presumption that statutes apply prospectively in the absence of a clearly expressed contrary intent . . . .” ( Evangelatos … by imposing broader duties than existed under the common law ( Elsner, supra, 34 Cal.4th 915, 937-938 ); (b) subjected tobacco sellers to tort liability for acts performed at a time when they enjoyed the protection of an immunity

People v. Prunty

62 Cal. 4th 59 · California Supreme Court · Aug 27, 2015

Sample’s expert testimony, given in response to the question of whether “the Norteños in the Sacramento area” engage in a pattern of criminal activity, implicitly, but clearly, linked the Varrio Garden-land Norteños subset … The issue is different when an expert’s relevant and qualified testimony is admitted without objection or challenge, as was the case with Sample’s opinion testimony.

Mutchmor v. McCarty

149 Cal. 603 · California Supreme Court · Aug 27, 1906

It may be that the court deemed the evidence offered by plaintiff insufficient to establish the validity of any of his alleged claims, irrespective of the objections based upon their conflict with the placer patents. … Upon this ground therefore, if upon no other, the finding against plaintiff’s claim of ownership is clearly supported by the evidence.

Butte Canal & Ditch Co. v. Vaughn

11 Cal. 143 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1858

But the decision in that case indicates very clearly the immateriality of this difference. … He must show clearly to what *153 portion he is entitled. He can claim only such portion as is established by decisive proof.

Adair v. White

85 Cal. 313 · California Supreme Court · Aug 4, 1890

Power, who was admitted by the counsel for defendants to be pre-eminently qualified as a surveyor. Power located the southern line of the patent of Santa Paula in conformity to its calls. … In consequence of the frequent occurrence of such discrepancies between different surveys, the rule that course and distance must yield to monuments is established.

Kelsey v. Miller

203 Cal. 61 · California Supreme Court · Jan 5, 1928

Immediately thereafter a correspondence was established. The letters written by Mary Moore to Dr. … As a judgment in rem it is binding upon all the world as to the determination of the marital status of the parties and is immune from collateral attack (People ex rel. Fogg v. Perris Irr.

Weaver v. Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'n

59 Cal. 2d 428 · California Supreme Court · Apr 18, 1963

In the present case, plaintiff has clearly alleged a contract, its breach, and the negligent or wilfully tortious nature of the breach; plaintiff thus has stated a cause of action in both contract and tort. 6 (See Siminoff … Such immunity would necessarily rest upon the outmoded concept that the chain of causation would break in this case because of the intervening, but foreseeable, act of a third party.

People v. Rodriguez

42 Cal. 3d 730 · California Supreme Court · Oct 23, 1986

Cross-examination About Specific Crimes Covered by Immunity Agreement (2a) Klaess testified on direct and cross-examination that under her plea bargain she was granted immunity from prosecution for all crimes allegedly committed … The parties differ, however on the effect of that definition on establishing accomplice status as a matter of law.

People v. Lenart

12 Cal. Rptr. 3d 592 · California Supreme Court · May 6, 2004

is required to establish relevance to prove intent. … Defendant cannot establish futility on this record.

Consolidated National Bank v. Hayes

112 Cal. 75 · California Supreme Court · Mar 24, 1896

Hayes and Edward Dougherty were appointed and duly qualified as administrators of the estate with the will annexed. … In the opinion, the court clearly distinguished the case from that of the Estate of Swain, 67 Cal. 637 .

People v. Wallin

32 Cal. 2d 803 · California Supreme Court · Oct 1, 1948

Paz or any other person were required to be shown in order to establish the elements of that offense. Defendant’s crime of being an accessory under section 32 was separate and distinct (see Pen. … Paz, defendant was clearly prejudiced by the refusal to give the requested instructions, since the jury in considering the credibility of witnesses may have rejected the corroborative evidence leaving the testimony of the

Walters v. Weed

45 Cal. 3d 1 · California Supreme Court · Apr 28, 1988

Those students could not have more clearly renounced the ambit of section 200[, subdivision] (b)." … Permitting an elector to vote at a fictitious address is not the solution to an unlawful refusal to register a voter although such registrations were clearly the least onerous for the students.

People v. Rices

226 Cal. Rptr. 3d 118 · California Supreme Court · Dec 11, 2017

Chambers qualified, technically, according to the [Private Conflicts Counsel] guidelines, Mr. Rices felt that Mr. … It was already established that he was guilty.

People ex rel. Whitney v. Board of Delegates of San Francisco Fire Department

14 Cal. 479 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1860

The fallacy of the argument is too clearly apparent to require further illustration. … It did not regulate a department already established, but established one which did not previously exist. The ordinance was repealed *498 in November, 1852, and another passed upon the same subject.

Sea-Land Service, Inc. v. County of Alameda

12 Cal. 3d 773 · California Supreme Court · Nov 4, 1974

It recognizes the well-established rule that “the Commerce Clause does not immunize interstate instrumentalities from all state taxation, but . . . such commerce may be required to pay a nondiscriminatory share of the tax … However, the fact that the containers are specifically designed to be carried aboard ship does not alter their property status or immunize them from local taxation.