Case law

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.

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.

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.

Elsworth v. Beech Aircraft Corp.

37 Cal. 3d 540 · California Supreme Court · Dec 17, 1984

An experienced manufacturer with employees qualified in the various aspects of airplane design may qualify for the “delegation option” program, which allows the manufacturer’s employees to act on behalf of the FAA to assure … Whatever the merit of these assertions, the record does not establish that plaintiffs raised them in the trial court, and they must therefore be deemed waived.

Webster v. Board of Dental Examiners

17 Cal. 2d 534 · California Supreme Court · Mar 6, 1941

A similar board has existed in California since 1885 (Stats. 1885, p. 110) for the purpose of examining applicants and granting licenses to practice dentistry to properly qualified persons. … The legislative intention is clearly seen in this and other portions of the statute.

Great Western Shows, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles

118 Cal. Rptr. 2d 746 · California Supreme Court · Apr 22, 2002

Finally, although there are some qualifying factual circumstances to be considered, the questions presented are for the most part questions of law. Therefore, we concluded certification was appropriate. n. … ‘as to clearly indicate that [the subject] has become exclusively a matter of state concern.’ [Citation.]

People v. Veamatahau

9 Cal. 5th 16 · California Supreme Court · Feb 27, 2020

[Such] records may also qualify as public records under section 1280”].) … Under section 720, “[a] person is qualified to testify as an expert” only if he or she “has special knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education sufficient to qualify him as an expert on the subject to which his testimony

Smith v. Fair Employment & Housing Commission

12 Cal. 4th 1143 · California Supreme Court · Apr 9, 1996

Fourth, the thus-qualified limitation RFRA imposes on government and the thus-qualified right it effectively grants to the individual against any *1187 “substantial burden” on the latter’s exercise of religion are statutory … Clearly, the principle of separation of powers is violated if any of the branches of government “exceed[s] the outer limits of its [own] power . . . .” (INS v.

Hotaling v. Hotaling

187 Cal. 695 · California Supreme Court · Jan 5, 1922

Hotaling at his suggestion retaining one share of the two thousand five hundred shares she owned in the corporation to qualify her to remain as the president and a director of the corporation; Mrs. … We think this ruling was clearly erroneous if any significance is to be attached to the declaration in the letter that everything had been left to Fred.

Franz v. Board of Medical Quality Assurance

31 Cal. 3d 124 · California Supreme Court · Apr 8, 1982

There was evidence that other hospital personnel also tried to obtain a qualified surgeon. … This rule clearly applies here.

People v. Figueroa

41 Cal. 3d 714 · California Supreme Court · Apr 7, 1986

The first premise is clearly unsupportable. … The State of Ohio amended its securities statute to clearly set its burden of proof. (See State v. Frost (1979) 57 Ohio St.2d 121 [ 387 N.E.2d 235, 237 [,] fn. 1 [Ohio Rev[.]

MacLeod v. Tribune Publishing Co.

52 Cal. 2d 536 · California Supreme Court · Aug 3, 1959

A reasonable jury could find that defendant clearly so insinuated. … It is not unreasonable therefore to require proof of special damages to establish a cause of action. The case would be entirely different, however, if the paper reported that “Mrs.

Marek v. Napa Community Redevelopment Agency

46 Cal. 3d 1070 · California Supreme Court · Oct 13, 1988

In furtherance of these objectives the Legislature has established in each community a redevelopment agency (§ 33100) which is primarily responsible for implementing the Community Redevelopment Law and which is empowered … Certain provisions of the Community Redevelopment Law clearly assume that an agency may use tax increment revenue for the acquisition of property (§ 33433) and the construction and acquisition of public improvements on project

Stenger v. Anderson

66 Cal. 2d 970 · California Supreme Court · Jul 3, 1967

We deal here with legislation designed to prevent the infliction cf harm to the elderly by those who are not fully qualified to care for them under proper conditions and on reasonable terms. … be furnished by the well-meaning but ill-equipped amateur. 11 In light of such considerations, we would frustrate the objectives of the 1953 extension of the Welfare and Institutions Code were we to reinstate the limits established

Galvin v. Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County

195 Cal. 686 · California Supreme Court · Apr 2, 1925

provision of the constitution constitutes an inhibition against the adoption by counties, whether acting by means of the initiative or otherwise, of local laws and ordinances which are in conflict with general laws; and it was clearly … The legislature shall establish a system of county governments, which shall be uniform throughout the state, and by general laws shall provide for township organizations, under which any county may organize whenever a majority

San Francisco Foundation v. Superior Court

37 Cal. 3d 285 · California Supreme Court · Nov 21, 1984

Clearly the county’s petition to remove the foundation as trustee instituted a proceeding brought by the county against the foundation within the meaning of section 394. … We now consider whether the foundation so qualifies. The foundation is not a corporation.

Pacheco v. State Bar

43 Cal. 3d 1041 · California Supreme Court · Sep 24, 1987

The State Bar virtually concedes as much: “Clearly petitioner’s conduct prior to 1982 foreclosed his admission [at that time].... … Clearly, the letter inviting recommendations fails to inform the references of the Committee’s specific 1982 findings.

People v. Kelley

22 Cal. 2d 169 · California Supreme Court · May 3, 1943

The wording of the clause now discussed clearly applies to the facts in the instant case. The officers received the messages over the telephone. … He has a privilege like the sender, which is as immune from surrender by the sender's consent, as the sender's privilege as to the first message was from surrender by his consent.

Davis v. County of Los Angeles

12 Cal. 2d 412 · California Supreme Court · Dec 1, 1938

retirement system maintained by a city, city and county, or county, the governing board of the district shall have power in its discretion to submit, and upon a petition duly signed and filed as prescribed it must submit, to the qualified … that the requirement for a statement of the facts constituting the necessity in emergency legislation does not modify the principle nor bestow upon the judiciary power to declare the declaration invalid unless it “appears clearly

People v. Santana

56 Cal. 4th 999 · California Supreme Court · Jun 10, 2013

Taylor (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 11, 24 [“Unlike serious bodily injury, the statutory definition of great bodily injury does not include a list of qualifying injuries”].) … Keenan, supra, 227 Cal.App.3d at pp. 35-36 [cigarette burns to breasts “clearly involved a serious permanent disfigurement” under § 203 (fn. omitted)].)