Case law

Cal. Medical Assn. v. Aetna Health of Cal., Inc.

California Supreme Court · Jul 17, 2023

Some of Havens’s progeny, however, have more clearly identified the injury that establishes standing under the diversion-of-resources theory as an economic one. In Fair Housing of Marin v. … As these courts have understood it, at least, the crucial injury in a diversion-of-resources case is clearly an economic one.

People v. Johnsen

10 Cal. 5th 1116 · California Supreme Court · Feb 1, 2021

of immunized witness testimony.” … Our intervention is only warranted when “the probative value of the photographs clearly is outweighed by their prejudicial effect.” (People v.

Flatley v. Mauro

46 Cal. Rptr. 3d 606 · California Supreme Court · Jul 27, 2006

"Although no action was taken either by Librarian or Siegel to prosecute Nadel, the record clearly shows conduct which is in violation of Librarian's oath and duties as an attorney. … principle easily "limited to the specific facts of this case" ( id. at p. 632, 139 P.3d at p. 24). [3] The majority, citing section 425.16, subdivision (b)(2), articulates this standard for deciding whether a plaintiff qualifies

Edwards v. State Bar

52 Cal. 3d 28 · California Supreme Court · Dec 20, 1990

Here, evidence of uncharged misconduct was relevant to establish a circumstance in aggravation. … Although lack of evil intent does not immunize an attorney’s conduct from discipline (see Murray v.

People v. Frazer

88 Cal. Rptr. 2d 312 · California Supreme Court · Oct 20, 1999

Defendant observes that when the crime allegedly occurred, section 800 provided immunity from prosecution in the event prosecution did not commence within six years of the charged crime. … The defendant also established that two witnesses who could have been called on his behalf at trial had since died.

Merced Bank v. Rosenthal

99 Cal. 39 · California Supreme Court · Jul 20, 1893

Judge Law had duly qualified as such judge. This case had been tried some months before, but no findings or judgment had been entered. … These provisions are as clearly repugnant to section 20, article XX., as the provision in regard to superior judges, for they exclude Monday.

Johnston v. Long

30 Cal. 2d 54 · California Supreme Court · May 6, 1947

Long, to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant, Ralph C. Long, was a proprietor of said building.” (Italics added.) … His doctors were highly qualified in plastic surgery, and they informed the jury at *77 length of the steps already taken to repair, in slight measure, the damage to his appearance.

Guardianship of Estate of Kawakita

42 Cal. 2d 840 · California Supreme Court · May 28, 1954

The court's refusal to make such an order, vacating the order of May 5, 1942, was clearly a refusal to "vacate, annul and declare void" the letters of guardianship. … It is equally well established that the word "revoke" means to "declare void." ( O'Hagen v.

SAM ANDREWS'SONS v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd.

47 Cal. 3d 157 · California Supreme Court · Nov 17, 1988

The regulation permits qualified access to employer property for organizational purposes with specific limitations on time and place, and on the number of organizers permitted to participate. … The majority concede in a footnote that the “grower’s visitation policies in the instant case were rather clearly not reasonable,” but they do not explain the basis of this holding.

People v. Cook

148 Cal. 334 · California Supreme Court · Dec 14, 1905

But the proposition is clearly untenable. … But it has gone no further in qualifying the language of the statute.

Hittle v. Santa Barbara County Employees Retirement Ass'n

39 Cal. 3d 374 · California Supreme Court · Aug 5, 1985

The right to a pension is among those rights clearly “favored” by the law. “ ‘ “[T]he rule [is] firmly established in this state that pension legislation must be liberally construed and applied to the end that the beneficent … Since Hittle did not have five years service credit and was not transferring to a reciprocating retirement system, he did not qualify for deferred retirement.

Kacsur v. Board of Trustees

18 Cal. 2d 586 · California Supreme Court · Sep 3, 1941

The above cited cases all so qualify the general power of the administrative agencies to fix the salaries of permanent teachers. … Appellants also contend that the evidence clearly shows that the board was opposed to the tenure law.

Wilson v. White

161 Cal. 453 · California Supreme Court · Dec 2, 1911

In determining the question thus presented it is necessary to consider certain additional facts which must be taken as established on this appeal in view of the record before us. … The demand therein for a deed was clearly, in effect, one for a deed of the property without the crop.

Amelco Electric v. City of Thousand Oaks

115 Cal. Rptr. 2d 900 · California Supreme Court · Feb 4, 2002

The dearth of cases asserting abandonment (see fn. 5, ante) bespeaks the difficulty of establishing it. The majority’s argument ignores practicality. … Certainly the plain meaning of the word “terminations,” as used in section 7105(d), does not clearly embrace “abandonment,” which is more akin to a mutual rescission.

Wilson v. Walters

19 Cal. 2d 111 · California Supreme Court · Dec 2, 1941

Manifestly, in order to qualify for that exception the officer must be: (1) A state officer, (2) An elective officer, and (3) One of the officers whose salary is fixed by the constitutional provision to which reference is … Section 710 clearly relates to a matter of state-wide concern as distinguished from a municipal affair. (Dept. of Water & Power v. Inyo-Chem. Co., supra.)

Estate of Chichernea

66 Cal. 2d 83 · California Supreme Court · Mar 8, 1967

At yet another point in the record, after it had been clearly established that aliens and nationals were given equal access to Rumanian courts, [fn. 25] the witness was asked whether "any law, Constitutional provision, or … The nonresident aliens bear the burden of establishing reciprocity (Prob. Code, 259.1); if they fail to do so, and if there are no other qualified takers, then the State may claim the property by escheat. (Prob.

People Ex Rel. Orloff v. Pacific Bell

7 Cal. Rptr. 3d 315 · California Supreme Court · Dec 15, 2003

The tentative decision recommended imposing a $25 million fine and establishing a customer education fund of $25 million. … In analyzing this issue, we note at the outset that it is well established that section 1759(a) is not intended to, and does not, immunize or insulate a public utility from any and all civil actions brought in superior court

Bullis v. Security Pacific National Bank

21 Cal. 3d 801 · California Supreme Court · Aug 10, 1978

A bank is immune from liability under Blackmon only if it acted properly in opening the account. … The risk that one co-executor would act alone and make unauthorized withdrawals was significant in establishing the standard of care.

Southern California Chapter of Associated Builders & Contractor Inc. v. California Apprenticeship Council

4 Cal. 4th 422 · California Supreme Court · Dec 24, 1992

As such, the Committee qualifies as ‘an employer or employee organization, or . . . both.’ Id.” (Hydrostorage, supra, 891 F.2d at p. 728.) … Since the Standards and Fund constitute an ERISA plan, this case clearly falls within the coverage of ERISA.” (Ibid.)

People v. Henderson

60 Cal. 2d 482 · California Supreme Court · Nov 19, 1963

It was clearly admissible to prove, as the jury was instructed, defendant’s motive for killing the deceased and the intent with which the act was done. … He does not gain immunity, for by successfully attacking the judgment he at least subjects himself to a retrial that may reach the same result. (United States v.