Case law

Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase

3 Cal. 4th 1 · California Supreme Court · Jul 30, 1992

The parties to this action thus clearly intended the arbitrator’s decision would be final. … “As a consequence, arbitration awards are generally immune from judicial review.

Estate of Fasken

19 Cal. 3d 412 · California Supreme Court · May 5, 1977

involved in this litigation and the box-car figures which seem to have acquired a being of their own, it would be the easiest course to simply agree with the majority and to join in yielding to the taxpayer the substantial immunity … That ruling provides that taxation of the same asset by two different states, even if deemed double taxation, qualifies under the federal credit and will be honored by the federal government.

Connecticut Indemnity Co. v. Superior Court

98 Cal. Rptr. 2d 221 · California Supreme Court · Jul 24, 2000

The court deferred for a later day specific claims of privacy, privilege, immunity, relevance, protection for proprietary information, etc., relating to particular responsive documents. … The insurers do not contest the first element, authorization, apparently because resolution No. 97-09 clearly establishes the necessary authority for the city council’s investigation.

Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego

32 Cal. 3d 180 · California Supreme Court · Aug 30, 1982

Established rules of statutory construction, employed by the courts as guides to the ascertainment of legislative intent (see People v. … By qualifying as a “time, place, or manner” (Cox v.

People v. Green

47 Cal. 2d 209 · California Supreme Court · Oct 19, 1956

I don't feel that I could qualify. ..." "The Court: ... … That issue and the proof of prior convictions are clearly severable."

Zolly v. City of Oakland

California Supreme Court · Aug 11, 2022

Proposition 13 required the imposition of any “special taxes” to be approved by two-thirds of the qualified electors of the city, council, or special district. (Art. XIII A, § 4.) … When used in the latter sense, ‘property’ is composed of a ‘ “complex aggregate of rights (or claims), privileges, powers, and immunities.” ’ ” (Ibid.; see also In re L.T. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 262, 263; 51 Cal.Jur.3d

Domar Electric, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles

9 Cal. 4th 161 · California Supreme Court · Dec 28, 1994

That requirement was clearly anticompetitive in that contractors were rendered ineligible for a bid award based solely on their nonunion status. The case does not aid Domar under the instant facts. … The Board’s program defines “OBE” to mean “any subcontractor which does not otherwise qualify as a Minority or Women Business Enterprise.”

People v. Ocean Shore Railroad, Inc.

32 Cal. 2d 406 · California Supreme Court · Aug 13, 1948

This evidence clearly establishes the ownership of these two parcels in the defendant. The fourth parcel in dispute is known as the Mary Tobin property. … Clearly the company held adversely by virtue of the sale to it.

People v. Hill

67 Cal. 2d 105 · California Supreme Court · Jul 25, 1967

Accordingly, this court has previously stated that it is permissible to instruct the jury on general intent in such cases if that instruction is clearly qualified by a specific intent instruction which leaves no doubt in … Booth, supra, 111 Cal.App.2d 106, 108 .) [11b] In the instant case there was no need to give a general intent instruction, and the instruction read to the jury was not clearly qualified by the subsequently given instruction

Estate of Easter

24 Cal. 2d 191 · California Supreme Court · May 1, 1944

The circumstance of his being the sole heir tends to establish that the testator intended the heirs to be ascertained as of the death of the sole heir. … Easter, do not purport to qualify the gift over of the remainder interest. Neither do the provisions for the payment of income to Ephraim's widow during Mrs.

Kirkpatrick v. Aline D.

14 Cal. 3d 557 · California Supreme Court · Jun 5, 1975

Holt learned that Penny Lane eventually planned to establish a “closed setting for girls.” According to Mrs. … This concept is well established and has been expressed by the CYA itself.

Glaire v. La Lanne-Paris Health Spa, Inc.

12 Cal. 3d 915 · California Supreme Court · Dec 2, 1974

that because of the continuing business relationship and interlocking ownership of La Lanne and Universal and because of La Lanne’s customary practice of systematically discounting its chattel paper to Universal, La Lanne qualifies … in so doing the court clearly erred.

Regency Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles

46 Cal. Rptr. 3d 742 · California Supreme Court · Aug 7, 2006

It is well established, however, that abutter’s rights are qualified, rather than absolute; a property owner “cannot demand that the adjacent street be left in its original condition for all time.” (People v. … First, “it is not to be presumed that the legislature in the enactment of statutes intends to overthrow long-established principles of law unless such intention is made clearly to appear either by express declaration or by

People v. Allen

42 Cal. 3d 1222 · California Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1986

Lee Chuck, supra, 78 Cal. 317 , is clearly misplaced. … We conclude defendant has failed to establish juror misconduct or that he was denied a fair trial. 28 6.

Christensen v. Superior Court

54 Cal. 3d 868 · California Supreme Court · Dec 2, 1991

the defendant to establish a lack of causation. … The plaintiffs in that case, as parents of the minor decedent, were clearly statutory right holders.

Alvarado v. Dart Container Corp. of California

229 Cal. Rptr. 3d 347 · California Supreme Court · Mar 5, 2018

Because “the record d[id] not establish that the policy was, either in form or substance, merely a restatement or summary of how the DLSE had applied the IWC wage orders in the past,” it was “a regulation within the meaning … The court gave that policy “great weight,” saying that “unless it is clearly unreasonable, it will be upheld.” (Skyline Homes, supra, 165 Cal.App.3d at p. 249.)

Weaver v. Jordan

64 Cal. 2d 235 · California Supreme Court · Mar 2, 1966

There is no reason to suppose that judges are better qualified than legislators to determine what social and economic programs should be adopted by the State of California." … A statute that required all red cedar trees in the state to be destroyed, thus clearly favoring one industry over another, was held constitutional.

Wholesale Tobacco Dealers Bureau of Southern California, Inc. v. National Candy & Tobacco Co.

11 Cal. 2d 634 · California Supreme Court · Jul 28, 1938

We believe that these eases clearly establish the constitutionality of the statute here under attack. The statute must be held to be a reasonable attempt upon the part of the state to accomplish a valid object. … Such determination is clearly within the legislative power.

Intel Corp. v. Hamidi

1 Cal. Rptr. 3d 32 · California Supreme Court · Jun 30, 2003

If preliminary injunctive relief were denied, and other aggregators began to crawl the eBay site, there appears to be little doubt that the load on eBay’s computer system would qualify as a substantial impairment of condition … “The Restatement test clearly speaks in the first instance to the impairment of the chattel. . . . But employees are not chattels (at least not in the legal sense of the term).”

Wright v. Killian

132 Cal. 56 · California Supreme Court · Feb 27, 1901

The parties, however, seem to have treated this admission (which was also made in open court when the trial began) as simply establishing a prima facie case for plaintiff, and as casting the burden on defendants of proving … In this estimate he was corroborated by several witnesses, who were qualified to judge of the value of the work, and who examined the shafts and the ground, and also by two of the men who helped do the work.