Case law

Johnston v. Board of Supervisors

31 Cal. 2d 66 · California Supreme Court · Dec 9, 1947

Even if it be assumed that the contemplated action would be in excess of the board’s jurisdiction in this case, any authority that a court might have to enjoin such action is qualified by the requirement that plaintiff show … This section clearly authorizes a county board of supervisors to provide in the county zoning ordinance for reasonable and practical means for putting the master plan into effect.

Strauss v. Horton

46 Cal. 4th 364 · California Supreme Court · Jun 17, 2009

The intent of this statute clearly was to limit marriages that lawfully could be performed in California to marriages of opposite-sex couples. ( 43 Cal.4th at p. 795 .) … smokers “ ‘who have suffered or incurred injuries’ ” (some italics omitted) does not apply retroactively to impose liability on tobacco company for sales occurring during period in which tobacco companies enjoyed statutory immunity

Tidewater Marine Western, Inc. v. Bradshaw

14 Cal. 4th 557 · California Supreme Court · Dec 19, 1996

State law or municipal ordinance establishing ... a maximum workweek lower than the maximum workweek established under this chapter . . . .” ( 29 U.S.C. § 218 (a).) … Here, for example, if Tidewater and Zapata violate applicable IWC wage orders, they should not be immune from suit simply because the DLSE adopted an invalid policy.

City of Los Angeles v. City of San Fernando

14 Cal. 3d 199 · California Supreme Court · May 12, 1975

Of course only reasonably beneficial uses will qualify for this purpose, and deliberate increases in qualified extractions from the ground basin are likely to be possible only for those parties who have multiple sources of … Proc., § 318) was established by annual figures showing overdraft during the water year 1949-1950.

Donkin v. Donkin

58 Cal. 4th 412 · California Supreme Court · Dec 26, 2013

We recognize that a party may be able to qualify for a fairness exception (§ 3, subd. … The Successor Trustees do not qualify for a fairness exception to the presumptive applicability of the current law.

People v. Superior Court

69 Cal. 2d 491 · California Supreme Court · Oct 31, 1968

The sketch of the gun-wielding robber was admitted in evidence upon offer of the defense and upon objection of the prosecutor who urged that the drawing did not clearly represent defendant. … The five decisions applied, to a limited degree, the definition of jurisdiction established by Abelleira v.

People v. Lara

245 Cal. Rptr. 3d 426 · California Supreme Court · Apr 11, 2019

Whether or not he was involved in the theft—a point the prosecutor conceded was not proved at trial—the evidence clearly establishes a substantial break between the theft and defendant’s act of unlawful driving. … The evidence showed that defendant was apprehended driving the vehicle six or seven days after it was stolen from its owner, a time gap that indisputably qualifies as a “ ‘substantial break’ ” between the theft and the driving

Cullen v. Glendora Water Co.

113 Cal. 503 · California Supreme Court · Jul 25, 1896

We have, therefore, again carefully considered the entire case, with the result that we adhere to the views expressed in Commissioner Vanclief’s opinion, except in so far as they may be qualified by what we shall have to … Whether or not said purchasers were qualified signers of the original petition for the organization of the district is a question which does not here arise. 8.

Skidgel v. Cal. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd.

282 Cal. Rptr. 3d 639 · California Supreme Court · Aug 19, 2021

Only one year earlier, the CUIAB had reached the opposite conclusion in a nonprecedential decision, ruling that a woman providing care to her son and receiving direct payments from a public entity qualified for unemployment … Where “the application of firmly established rules of statutory construction” establish a statute’s meaning, we “may not rest” our decision “on the weighing and balancing of public policy considerations.” (Torres v.

J.O. v. Super. Ct.

California Supreme Court · May 28, 2026

courts to establish “detailed treatment program[s]” for certain qualifying drug offenders. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11395, subd. (d)(1)(A).) … Here, too, we can no longer endorse Solberg’s logic to immunize blanket challenges under section 170.6 from judicial inquiry when such challenges threaten the separation of powers.

City Street Improvement Co. v. Pearson

181 Cal. 640 · California Supreme Court · Dec 8, 1919

Section 33, above quoted, qualifies this prohibition so far as to allow an assessment of that amount to be made under a method of procedure ordained by the board of supervisors, if provision is made in the proceeding for … Clearly, if suit had been brought upon the contract against the Amritam Company, no recovery could have been had thereon upon a showing of the facts here presented.

People v. Holland

23 Cal. 3d 77 · California Supreme Court · Dec 29, 1978

As demonstrated, post, this contention was not clearly frivolous, and a certificate of probable cause should have been issued to permit appellate review of this issue. … The availability of a competent appointed counsel was irrelevant—the defendant “. . . was entitled to counsel of his choice because he could afford it, no matter how well qualified court-appointed counsel may have been.”

Johnson & Johnson v. Superior Court

38 Cal. 3d 243 · California Supreme Court · Mar 4, 1985

The act of filing a return receipt, one of the requirements for proof of service set forth in section 417.20, clearly falls into the latter category. In Colonial Discount Co. v. … Hence, the presumption of receipt permitted by Evidence Code section 641 does not qualify as “other evidence” of actual receipt under section 417.20.

People v. Lance W.

37 Cal. 3d 873 · California Supreme Court · Feb 1, 1985

In exchange for a promise of immunity, the passenger testified that the defendant, another passenger, had sold him the pills. … Even if arguendo Proposition 8 is not violative of the one-subject rule for the purpose of qualifying the whole measure for the ballot (Brosnahan v.

Alcala v. Superior Court

43 Cal. 4th 1205 · California Supreme Court · Jun 12, 2008

As we held in Mendoza, supra, 24 Cal.4th 130 , the intent or motivation with which different acts are committed can qualify as a “common element of substantial importance” in their commission and establish that such crimes … That standard is clearly met with respect to the Robin Samsoe charges and the four Los Angeles charges.

Brosterhous v. State Bar

12 Cal. 4th 315 · California Supreme Court · Dec 21, 1995

Superior Court (1960) 54 Cal.2d 548, 565 [ 7 Cal.Rptr. 109 , 354 P.2d 637 ]), subdivision (c) does not clearly make its actions matters subject to judicial notice as acts of either the legislative or executive department. … Building on past cases in which the court had held that a federal court may not import state-created immunities (Martinez v.

People v. Hunt

19 Cal. 3d 888 · California Supreme Court · Sep 14, 1977

Swanner made a qualified *893 identification of the photograph of defendant as depicting the perpetrator of the assault, but Winkler was unable to identify any of the photographs as that of the robber. … [If] An amendment . . . may not be made by the court under its authority to correct clerical error, therefore, unless the record clearly demonstrates that the error was not the result of the exercise of judicial discretion

In Re Estate of Saueressig

44 Cal. Rptr. 3d 672 · California Supreme Court · Jun 22, 2006

Smith argued that, although the will was typewritten, it qualified as a holographic will. … Smith urged there was a second qualifying witness, Theodore Boody, who was notary Shin's husband.

People v. Carlucci

23 Cal. 3d 249 · California Supreme Court · Feb 7, 1979

Courts are established to discover where lies the truth when issues are contested, and the final responsibility to see that justice is done rests with the judge.” … Within reasonable limits, it is not only the right but the duty of a trial judge to clearly bring out the facts so that the important functions of his office may be fairly and iustly performed.’

MacKenzie v. Hodgkin

126 Cal. 591 · California Supreme Court · Nov 8, 1899

In each count of the cross-complaint—as also in the answer—it is alleged that the assignment on which plaintiff sues was made to him by his employers without consideration and merely for the purpose of qualifying him to sue … This objection is clearly unfounded; *595 the plaintiff sues to recover money loaned; defendant admits that he had the money of plaintiff’s assignors, but avers, in effect, that he received it as part performance of their