Case law

County of Los Angeles v. City of Alhambra

27 Cal. 3d 184 · California Supreme Court · Jun 5, 1980

Moreover, instead of implementing the code’s provisions for bail the ordinance offers the violator an immunity from code-mandated proceedings on payment of a noncode penalty directly to the city. … Section 22508: “Local authorities shall not establish parking meter zones or fix the rate of fees for such zones except by ordinance....

Eldridge v. See Yup Co.

17 Cal. 44 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1860

Wells (1 Kern. 322). “ The prohibition is inconsistent with the title conveyed by the deed, and is clearly void. … But this mere direction in the deed, as to the manner in which the property, absolutely conveyed, shall be used by the grantee, neither qualifies the title nor raises a use or trust.

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.)

Marine Forests Society v. California Coastal Commission

30 Cal. Rptr. 3d 30 · California Supreme Court · Jun 23, 2005

It is most clearly an invasion of the executive power of the State, or the rights of the people to elect.” ( 8 Cal. at p. 4 .) … The latter provision now reads: “Unless the law otherwise provides, the Governor may fill a vacancy in office by appointment until a successor qualifies.” (Italics added.)

Bank of California v. City & County of San Francisco

142 Cal. 276 · California Supreme Court · Feb 18, 1904

The only franchise acquired under the articles of incorporation—and the findings in this case establish the fact that the corporation has no other franchise—was the right to be and exist as a corporation, with all the powers … given hy law to corporations, and the right to enjoy the privilege and immunities of a corporation in the conduct of the business of banking.

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.

Serova v. Sony Music Entertainment

California Supreme Court · Aug 18, 2022

Typically, a defendant must establish the anti-SLAPP statute’s applicability before the burden shifts and a plaintiff must establish a claim has sufficient merit. (Baral v. Schnitt (2016) 1 Cal.5th 376, 384.) … Amway Corp. (5th Cir. 2001) 242 F.3d 539, 552, fn. 26 [speech’s commercial status is established “regardless of [a speaker’s] knowledge of falsity”].)

Smith v. Industrial Accident Commission

44 Cal. 2d 364 · California Supreme Court · Apr 22, 1955

We conclude, nevertheless, for the reasons hereinafter explained, that it is permissible and desirable to distinguish between a formula or rule-established “100 per cent disability” for certain rating pur *368 poses, and … If an employe may properly be rated at 100 per cent disability to qualify him for the basic form of workmen’s compensation, even though his earning power has not in truth, for practical purposes, been impaired, 2 it should

People v. Bunyard

45 Cal. 3d 1189 · California Supreme Court · Jul 11, 1988

In the case at bar, however, the record clearly establishes that the evidence claimed as improper rebuttal was not in the prosecution’s possession until after the close of the People’s case-in-chief. 14 We cannot perceive … Ramos would clearly overturn established California doctrine affording greater rights to the defendant.

Morton v. Broderick

118 Cal. 474 · California Supreme Court · Oct 6, 1897

Nor could the facts, if they be deemed proved, that the new board was appointed and qualified and met and organized before the judgment was entered and the appeal taken, affect in any way the legal situation. … Thereafter, if the ousted officer who had thus voluntarily retired should endeavor in mandamus to assert a legal title against one who was clearly de facto, the court, as has been said, would in such a proceeding go no further

Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co.

27 Cal. 3d 167 · California Supreme Court · Jun 2, 1980

In a series of cases arising out of a variety of factual settings in which a discharge clearly violated an express statutory objective or undermined a firmly established principle of public policy, courts have recognized … Although in another passage of the complaint plaintiff states that if he had complied with defendants’ orders he would “in all probability” have been retained as an employee, that qualified language does not negate the more

Le Roy v. Dunkerly

54 Cal. 452 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1880

This was held to be an express recognition of any known and established usage or custom in the Spanish provinces in relation to grants of land and the title thereto, which should bring them within a well-established rule … The purpose and effect of the act in this asj)ect of it—that is, as a conveyance or authority for a conveyance of this city property—are clearly indicated upon the face of it.

Hunt v. Superior Court

90 Cal. Rptr. 2d 236 · California Supreme Court · Nov 22, 1999

The appellate standard for reviewing preliminary injunctions is well established. … By adding the last sentence to subdivision (a), however, the Legislature expressly and clearly disclaimed any intention that section 17000.5 would affect the duty of counties to provide health care.

People v. Britt

12 Cal. Rptr. 3d 66 · California Supreme Court · Apr 19, 2004

A defendant may clearly be convicted of violating both parts of section 290. Section 654 limits multiple punishment and prosecution, not conviction. (See People v. … This seemingly all-encompassing statement is qualified by Kellett’s earlier limitation of the prohibition against multiple prosecution to cases in which the prosecution knew or should have known of the two offenses.

In Re Lara

1 Cal. 3d 486 · California Supreme Court · Dec 23, 1969

Ballistics tests established it was the murder weapon. … That being so, their responses clearly satisfied the Witherspoon test. McComb, J., concurred.

Farley v. Healey

67 Cal. 2d 325 · California Supreme Court · Sep 18, 1967

Given compliance with the formal requirements for submitting an initiative, the registrar must place it on the ballot unless he is directed to do otherwise by a court on a compelling showing that a proper case has been established … This purpose is clearly indicated by the express provisions making it the duty of the board to enact the ordinances necessary to effectuate such policy decisions of the people.

People v. Grimes

1 Cal. 5th 698 · California Supreme Court · Aug 22, 2016

As to both conversations, defendant’s offer of proof included several statements made by Morris that were clearly against Morris’s penal interest. … Our decision in Lawley, supra, 27 Cal.4th 102 , applied the against-interest exception more faithfully and establishes that there was no abuse of discretion here.

Wrinkle v. Wright

136 Cal. 491 · California Supreme Court · Jun 6, 1902

The right to contest follows from the right of a qualified applicant to purchase. (McFaul v. Pfankuch, 98 Cal. 400 .) … The above section clearly contemplates a survey of the land and that a copy of the field-notes and plat shall be filed before an application shall be approved.

People v. Rodriguez

1 Cal. 5th 676 · California Supreme Court · Aug 22, 2016

Yet that managerial authority is not necessarily immune from any constraints or review. … Nor does it establish that Judge Chiarello’s ruling, based on his interpretation of the evidence, was erroneous.

Pinnacle Museum Tower Ass'n v. Pinnacle Market Development (US), LLC

55 Cal. 4th 223 · California Supreme Court · Aug 16, 2012

common law as a covenant running with the land or an equitable servitude is immaterial: a provision that qualifies under the act may be enforced as a matter of statute. … The Homeowners Association bears the burden of establishing unreasonableness under section 1354. {Nahrstedt v. Lakeside Village Condominium Assn., supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 380 .)