Case law

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 v. Zerillo

36 Cal. 2d 222 · California Supreme Court · Oct 24, 1950

It may be directed to the eliciting of any matter which may tend to overcome or qualify the effect of the testimony given by him on his direct examination. (People v. … Creeks, 170 Cal. 368, 379 [ 149 P. 821 ]), and there is nothing in the 1935 amendment to indicate any intent to establish a special rule governing the scope of cross-examination of a defendant in a criminal case.

People v. Jones

11 Cal. 4th 118 · California Supreme Court · Aug 31, 1995

A prisoner willing to participate in a qualifying assignment but not assigned to a program earns one-for-two credits. (Pen. Code, § 2933, subd. (a).) … credit system established under section 2933. [3] The majority states: "After [defendant] had spent apparently 382 days at the center, he was excluded as unsuitable."

People v. Sage

26 Cal. 3d 498 · California Supreme Court · Feb 19, 1980

This parallels the structure of subsections (2) and (3), both of which begin with the same introductory clause as subsection (1) but close with the qualifiers “as a condition of probation.. .” and “for a definite period of … Yet detainee/misdemeanants are clearly entitled to such credit under section 4019.

In Re Lewallen

23 Cal. 3d 274 · California Supreme Court · Feb 9, 1979

—clearly reveals that he gave consideration to petitioner’s election to plead not guilty in imposing sentence. … The judge in Morales declared his defendant had the same rights as anyone else, but—and he then proceeded to qualify those rights. In the instant case, the judge reacted in precisely that manner.

People v. Sorden

29 Cal. Rptr. 3d 777 · California Supreme Court · Jun 23, 2005

Only the most disabling of conditions, we emphasize, would qualify under the standard we announce today. … Defendant's claimed depression clearly did not satisfy this standard. Defendant knew of his obligation to register and, had he taken it to heart, he could have managed to discharge it.

Ochoa v. Superior Court

39 Cal. 3d 159 · California Supreme Court · Jul 29, 1985

Defendants do not claim that the trial court’s order may be sustained on the basis of sovereign immunity. (See Gov. Code, § 845.6.) … The cases relied upon by defendant are all clearly distinguishable from the instant case. In Hamilton v.

People v. Trujillo

51 Cal. Rptr. 3d 718 · California Supreme Court · Dec 11, 2006

Defense counsel conceded that defendant’s prior conviction for assault with a deadly weapon “is clearly a strike” because the information in that case alleged that defendant committed the assault “with a deadly weapon, to … We held in Woodell “that appellate opinions, in general, are part of the record of conviction that the trier of fact may *181 consider in determining whether a conviction qualifies under the sentencing scheme at issue.”

People ex rel. Attorney-General v. Scannell

7 Cal. 432 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1857

The different provisions of the statute, when taken together, clearly sustain this view. … “The relator should first establish his title to the office by a direct proceeding *443 for that purpose, and then his right to the books and papers would follow, as a matter of course.”

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.

People v. Hill

66 Cal. 2d 536 · California Supreme Court · Apr 27, 1967

establishes his guilt under the felony-murder doctrine. … The offer was clearly incompetent hearsay, as to which no exception has been suggested.

Swallow v. Tungsten Products Co.

205 Cal. 207 · California Supreme Court · Sep 19, 1928

We express no opinion as to whether appellant will be able to establish the truth of its allegations. … He must have a direct interest in the result of the litigation, and his complaint must clearly indicate that fact.

Gagne v. Bertran

43 Cal. 2d 481 · California Supreme Court · Oct 19, 1954

Such damages, had they been suffered, would have resulted directly from defendant’s failure to report the truth and would clearly be recoverable. … As hereinafter shown, the cases establish that the rule is to the contrary.

People v. Agnew

16 Cal. 2d 655 · California Supreme Court · Nov 29, 1940

Prouty and was clearly at his implied request and direction. “False imprisonment is the unlawful violation of the personal liberty of another”. (Pen. Code, sec. 236.) … Strassman, 112 Cal. 683 [ 45 Pac. 3 ], but the effect of such language is clearly nullified by the decision in People v.

Kay v. Superior Court

30 Cal. 2d 215 · California Supreme Court · Jun 2, 1947

The other medical witness was also of the opinion that petitioner was sane and competent but his opinion was qualified: “Q. And what is your opinion- A. … The witness had testified earlier that the sale of petitioner’s home would be detrimental to him, but this opinion was also qualified on cross-examination: “Q.

Richmond v. Dart Industries, Inc.

29 Cal. 3d 462 · California Supreme Court · Jun 15, 1981

Quite clearly, the Fanucchi court felt that class members who opposed the suit should not be able to defeat the right of the remaining members of the class to maintain a representative action. 8 *472 In Hebbard v. … “To be sure, an essential concomitant of adequate representation is that the party’s attorney be qualified, experienced and generally able to conduct the proposed litigation.

Reuter v. Bd. of Supervisors of San Mateo

220 Cal. 314 · California Supreme Court · Mar 1, 1934

In California Jurisprudence, volume 23, page 744, it is said: “A proviso—the office of which is to explain, qualify or restrain the operation of a preceding provision—should be read in the light of the subject matter of the … Another well-established rule of construction is that of contemporary construction.

People v. Moore

51 Cal. 4th 1104 · California Supreme Court · Jun 23, 2011

Garcia Espitia (2005) 546 U.S. 9, 10 [noting split of authority in lower courts, and concluding that no clearly established federal law existed for purposes of federal habeas corpus review because “Faretta says nothing about … Accomplices’ Case Dispositions In the course of the trial, the jury learned that Avery had been granted immunity and would not be prosecuted for her involvement in the Crumb murders.

Union Oil Co. v. State Board of Equalization

60 Cal. 2d 441 · California Supreme Court · Nov 14, 1963

Pennsylvania (1891) 141 U.S. 18 [ 11 S.Ct. 876 , 35 L.Ed. 613 ], establish the constitutionality of such an ad valorem tax. The ruling in New York ex rel. Whitney v. … The imposition of the use tax, as we shall now explain, clearly does not unduly burden interstate commerce.

Tillaux v. Tillaux

115 Cal. 663 · California Supreme Court · Jan 26, 1897

declarations cannot be received with this object, for in these cases there exists no resulting or presumptive trust, and the admission of such evidence would be for the purpose of contradicting the written instrument, and establishing … the deeds of the respective parties were put in evidence, without anything more, appellant’s [Harlow’s] title must have prevailed, and hence the burden was upon respondent [Gatlin] to allege and prove some fact that would qualify