Case law

American Motorcycle Assn. v. Superior Court

20 Cal. 3d 578 · California Supreme Court · Feb 9, 1978

In Washington Gas, the Supreme Court explained: “The principle [of equitable indemnity] qualifies and restrains within just limits the rigor of the rule which forbids recourse between wrongdoers . . . . … As we have seen, at the time the legislation was enacted, California case law had clearly established that “a right of indemnification may arise as a result of contract or equitable considerations” (Peters v.

In Re Haines

195 Cal. 605 · California Supreme Court · Mar 19, 1925

should have inserted after the word ‘prisoner’ the words ‘charged with or convicted of a felony. ’ It would have, in such case, used the same expression as used in a prior statute, namely, ‘ every prisoner, ’ .without any qualifying … The statute authorizes the establishment of a reformatory department in the Preston School of Industry wherein regular public school work and employment in useful and productive labor are prescribed.

State v. Superior Court

32 Cal. 4th 1234 · California Supreme Court · May 24, 2004

As part of the California Tort Claims Act, Government Code section 900 et seq. 1 establishes certain conditions precedent to the filing of a lawsuit against a public entity. … We therefore reject defendants’ contention that failure to allege compliance establishes a jurisdictional defect. (See, e.g., Hart v.

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. Cromer

103 Cal. Rptr. 2d 23 · California Supreme Court · Jan 22, 2001

Traditionally, therefore, an appellate court reviews findings of fact under a deferential standard (substantial evidence under California law, clearly erroneous under federal law), but it reviews determinations of law under … put it another way, whether the rule of law as applied to the established facts is or is not violated.'" ( Ornelas v.

Merrill v. Navegar, Inc.

110 Cal. Rptr. 2d 370 · California Supreme Court · Aug 6, 2001

Some are established by the Legislature through enactment of statutes. Others are judicially established where "clearly supported by public policy. [Citations.]" ( Rowland v. … *384 and did not create any immunity from negligence liability."

Alvarado v. Superior Court

99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 149 · California Supreme Court · Nov 15, 2000

Based upon the evidence adduced at these hearings, the trial court found as follows: “The evidence presented clearly established that witnesses 1 through 3 are in serious danger as a result of their participation in this … The use of violence and intimidation by criminal gangs to immunize themselves from the criminal justice system is by no means a recent phenomenon.

Ward Land & Stock Co. v. Mapes

147 Cal. 747 · California Supreme Court · Sep 19, 1905

The court instructs you that conditional sales as defined by the court are enforced by the courts of this state when clearly established, but that the policy of the-law is against upholding secret liens and charges upon personal … Harris , already cited, was not referred to in the latter •case, and there is nothing to show that there was any inten *754 tion to overrule or qualify it. In Ryan Live Stock etc. Co. v.

Henshaw v. Foster

176 Cal. 507 · California Supreme Court · Nov 19, 1917

districts,” approved May 1, 1911, together with the amendment thereto approved December 24, 1911, and the further amendment thereto approved May 29, 1915, [Stats. 1915, p. 921], A petition signed by the requisite number of qualified … In that case the act under review did not as clearly as does this statute provide that any district formed thereunder might include other municipalities, but it did provide for the formation of .a district in any part of

Irvine v. Reclamation District No. 108

24 Cal. 2d 468 · California Supreme Court · Jul 10, 1944

However, the Sawyer case is clearly contrary to the Kendall ease. The Kendall case was followed by Meyer v. … We see' no derogation of sovereign immunity in that conclusion.

In Re Estate of Winchester

133 Cal. 271 · California Supreme Court · Jun 25, 1901

In Estate of Upham, 127 Cal. 90 , the testator bequeathed the residue of his estate “ to the legally qualified and constituted trustees or managers of the Good Templars Orphans’ Home of Vallejo, ... in trust, for the use … In making the gifts to the societies by their names, I think it clearly and necessarily inferable that the gifts were intended to be made to them in their aggregate capacity, and for the purposes for which they were organized

Gaines v. Fidelity National Title Insurance Co.

62 Cal. 4th 1081 · California Supreme Court · Feb 25, 2016

But what is meant by establishing a condition of impossibility, impracticability, or futility in the first instance? The question depends on both the timing and nature of the interference. … Due to various complications, however, the parties were unable to clearly identify the entity that held the title to the property pursuant to a loan taken out by Tornberg.

Serrano v. Priest

18 Cal. 3d 728 · California Supreme Court · Dec 30, 1976

Clearly there was no error in this respect. … Article IX, section 14 of the state Constitution clearly establishes that it is the Legislature which bears the ultimate responsibility for establishing school districts and their boundaries. 51 By its exercise of this power

Dept. of Corrections & Rehabilitation v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.

California Supreme Court · Feb 20, 2025

But if “the agency’s interpretation is clearly erroneous or unauthorized under the statute, we will not give effect to its understanding of the statute.” (Larkin, at p. 158.) … It is undisputed that IDL benefits qualify as a “ ‘salary continuation plan’ ” within the meaning of this provision.

United States v. State

25 Cal. 2d 697 · California Supreme Court · Dec 30, 1944

In the present case the incompetent was represented by a duly appointed and qualified guardian. … Tennessee, 290 U.S. 354 [ 54 S.Ct. 138 , 78 L.Ed. 358 ] : ‘We see no token of a purpose to extend a like immunity to permanent investments or the fruits of business enterprises. ’ In this respect it is interesting to observe

Birkenfeld v. City of Berkeley

17 Cal. 3d 129 · California Supreme Court · Jun 16, 1976

The statutes provided in effect that during a period of approximately two years tenants should be immune from eviction if they paid a reasonable rent to be determined by the courts and were not “objectionable” and if the … The sweeping nature *156 of the court’s change of views and its direct relationship to the earlier rent control decisions is perhaps seen most clearly in Olsen v.

California Statewide Communities Development Authority v. All Persons Interested in Re of the Validity of a Purchase Agreement

55 Cal. Rptr. 3d 487 · California Supreme Court · Mar 5, 2007

In my view, a subject qualifies as "secular," by definition, only if it consists of information and coursework that is neutral with respect to religion. … In other words, any subject that qualifies as secular will necessarily consist of information and coursework that is neutral with respect to religion.

Hadian v. Schwartz

8 Cal. 4th 836 · California Supreme Court · Nov 23, 1994

Little argument is needed to establish both the substantiality and structural nature of the seismic retrofit required at the Sunset Boulevard building. … which the parties were aware of a city code program designed to upgrade unreinforced buildings and that that eventuality could have been contemplated by both or either at the time the lease was signed are questions not clearly

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.

Pacific Legal Foundation v. Brown

29 Cal. 3d 168 · California Supreme Court · Mar 12, 1981

“Section 18850 provides in part: ‘The [SPB] shall establish and adjust salary ranges for each class of position in the state civil service. … The 1934 constitutional provision and subsequent amendments thereto clearly manifest ‘a purpose of centralizing civil service administration in the State Personnel Board as an agency immune from.. . external and internal