Case law

Sweetwater Union High School Dist. v. Gilbane Bldg. Co.

California Supreme Court · Feb 28, 2019

First, the defendant must establish that the challenged claim arises from activity protected by section 425.16. [Citation.] … Yet, the statutory scheme clearly contemplates that courts may consider them.8 Defendants further suggest that use of statements from a different case should not be allowed because “[n]o showing need be made that the

Morgan v. Reasor Corp.

69 Cal. 2d 881 · California Supreme Court · Dec 12, 1968

As we point out, the Unruh Act clearly covers the sale of goods and services involved in this case. … If Midwest had purchased a substantial number of such notes from IBC in the past, that factor too would weigh heavily, but plaintiffs do not establish any such practice.

Bacon v. Bacon

150 Cal. 477 · California Supreme Court · Feb 7, 1907

The three children were appointed executor and executrices of the will and duly qualified and acted as such. … The original will was filed and probated as it was written by the testator, and, consequently, the estate exceeding two hundred and fifty thousand dollars, the probate of the will clearly established that the plaintiff was

Hartford Casualty Insurance v. J.R. Marketing, L.L.C.

61 Cal. 4th 988 · California Supreme Court · Aug 10, 2015

Cumis counsel provide no convincing reason why they should be absolutely immune from liability for enriching themselves in this fashion. … The “more collaborative” system established by section 2860, Squire Sanders contends, mitigates the risk that an insurer’s questioning of counsel’s fees will undermine counsel’s independence.

Tustin Fruit Assn. v. Earl Fruit Co.

6 Cal. Unrep. 37 · California Supreme Court · Jun 27, 1898

might be ground for inquiring into their relations with plaintiff; but this is not shown, and defendant has no concern in the nature of the plaintiff’s title to the fruit—whether it was that of full legal ownership, or the qualified … It appeared clearly enough from the findings that plaintiff sold and defendant received the goods pursuant to the guaranty of sales in the contract of December 18, 1894.

Ex parte Whitwell

19 L.R.A. 727 · California Supreme Court · Apr 1, 1893

The petitioner further alleges that he treats in the asylum established by him both male and female persons suffering from any and all nervous diseases and from mild forms of insanity, such as melancholia, dementia, and hysteria … These provisions are clearly invalid.

Smyrniotis v. Local Joint Executive Board of Hotel & Restaurant Employees & Bartenders International Union

64 Cal. 2d 30 · California Supreme Court · Jan 27, 1966

Since the picketing here clearly arose out of a disagreement between Union and Employer over the terms and conditions of employment, the Employer’s attack upon it must rest on the contention that the subsequent organization … The result of this reasoning, as Justice Carter points out in his Kelleher dissent, is to immunize and “to protect an employer who is engaged in a dispute with his employees and the union of their choice over legitimate labor

Serrano v. Unruh

32 Cal. 3d 621 · California Supreme Court · Oct 28, 1982

The legislative prerequisites clearly demonstrate the trial court’s abuse of discretion in making the award involved herein. … The economic arguments cannot substitute for failure to qualify for a ‘private attorney general’ award in the Serrano III appeal.

Sontheimer v. Pierce

32 Cal. 2d 265 · California Supreme Court · Jul 30, 1948

This amendment clearly indicates that the statute of succession was not to *270 contro~ the interpretation of the term cc issue" as used in a will. … The testator used “lawful issue” to qualify or restrict the meaning of children or grandchildren.

Schatz v. Allen Matkins Leck Gamble & Mallory LLP

45 Cal. 4th 557 · California Supreme Court · Jan 26, 2009

The MFAA confers no immunity from valid defenses, such as the existence of a contractual obligation to arbitrate. … Courts “will infer the repeal of a statute only when ... a subsequent act of the legislature clearly is intended to occupy the *574 entire field covered by a prior enactment.”

People v. Johnson

8 Cal. 5th 475 · California Supreme Court · Nov 25, 2019

We may also consider nondiscriminatory reasons for the peremptory strike that ‘necessarily dispel any inference of bias,’ so long as those reasons are apparent from and clearly established in the record.” … What should have triggered further concerns among the members of the majority is the absence of any “nondiscriminatory reasons for [the] peremptory challenge[s] that are apparent from and ‘clearly established’ in the record

People v. Hansel

1 Cal. 4th 1211 · California Supreme Court · Feb 27, 1992

The words of the section do not qualify the right of the People to recall witnesses at the special hearing. Instead, that right is “clear and unambiguous.” (Lungren v. Deukmejian, supra, 45 Cal.3d at p. 735.) … While this statement indicates one possible purpose for recalling a witness, it does not *1218 clearly indicate an intent to limit the right of the prosecution to recall witnesses.

Long Beach Police Officers Assn. v. City of Long Beach

46 Cal. 3d 736 · California Supreme Court · Sep 6, 1988

As the underscored language makes clear, section 19251 clearly was not designed to limit a state agency’s power to proscribe incompatible activities of its officers and employees. … There, it became apparent that the Assembly committee, unlike its Senate counterpart, opposed even the establishment of minimum standards.

Candid Enterprises, Inc. v. Grossmont Union High School District

39 Cal. 3d 878 · California Supreme Court · Sep 26, 1985

The Act, moreover, clearly permits such arrangements. … First, not all school districts in need of funds for permanent facilities can qualify to receive them under the Greene Act. (See Ed. Code, § 17740.)

Arcadia Unified School District v. State Department of Education

2 Cal. 4th 251 · California Supreme Court · Mar 16, 1992

IX, § 5.) [6] We must first establish the scope of our inquiry. … However, the enforcement of rules against noisiness and general rowdiness on buses is clearly required for the safety of the students on a moving bus.

United Educators of S.F. etc. v. Cal. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd.

California Supreme Court · Jan 16, 2020

Code, § 37620 [“The teaching sessions and vacation periods established pursuant to Section 37618 shall be established without reference to the school year as defined in Section 37200. … But that provision merely establishes the minimum period of instruction for year- round school programs; it does not establish that a summer session cannot be part of an academic year.

Kimball v. Pacific Gas Elec. Co.

220 Cal. 203 · California Supreme Court · Feb 28, 1934

The cases under that section are quite numerous, and have firmly established the rules applicable to such eases. One of the leading cases on the subject is Lady Washington C. Co. v. … All of these factors serve to distinguish clearly that case from the instant one.

People v. Rivers

66 Cal. 2d 1000 · California Supreme Court · Jul 7, 1967

This interrogation clearly violated the prejudicial error rule established by Fahy v. Connecticut, 378 U.S. 85 [ 11 L.Ed.2d 171 , 84 S.Ct. 229 ], and Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 [ 17 L.Ed.2d 705 , 87 S.Ct. 824 ]. … The fact that Rivers took the stand at his trial and repeated some but not all of the admissions did not immunize the error.

Baggett v. Gates

32 Cal. 3d 128 · California Supreme Court · Aug 23, 1982

That this is a province the Legislature cannot invade is established, they contend, by section 5, subdivision (b) of article XI. … Defendants, however, contend that the phrase “for purposes of punishment” qualifies each of the preceding terms in section 3303.

PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler

95 Cal. Rptr. 2d 198 · California Supreme Court · Jun 2, 2000

Both are qualified to provide, and do provide, equivalent legal services. … The award was not clearly wrong; the superior court did not abuse its discretion.