Case law

People v. Johnson

61 Cal. 4th 674 · California Supreme Court · Jul 2, 2015

Because “term” and “sentence” have been used interchangeably, and “term” clearly has more than one meaning in the statute, we cannot be confident that “sentence” has a consistent meaning throughout the statute. … There are other facts and circumstances relevant to the decision whether to resentence the inmate, but these other facts and circumstances must be established in the resentencing proceeding; they are not established based

Brown v. Superior Court of Sacramento County

63 Cal. 4th 335 · California Supreme Court · Jun 6, 2016

If so, it might be better to use the same terminology—which has an established meaning—rather than a new term that might suggest something different is intended. … They merely need to hijack a vaguely similar measure that was in the process of qualifying. But the Legislature never intended section 9002’s mandatory provisions to be so easily evaded.

Hirshfeld v. Dana

193 Cal. 142 · California Supreme Court · Feb 2, 1924

Appellant called only one expert witness, and he qualified and testified under subdivision 9, section 1870, and section 1944, of the Code of Civil Procedure. … If he is again called as a witness his examination may more clearly show the foundation for his opinion. (I) We have already discussed this point.

Hogan v. Ingold

38 Cal. 2d 802 · California Supreme Court · Apr 22, 1952

If all the Act did was to create this liability, it would clearly be substantive. … “It is an established canon of interpretation that statutes are not to be given a retrospective operation unless it is clearly made to appear that such was the legislative intent. ...

Smith v. Lewis

13 Cal. 3d 349 · California Supreme Court · Jan 20, 1975

In addition, by attending National Guard reserve drills he qualified for separate retirement benefits from the federal government, also through a noncontributoiy plan. … community property law. 7 Instead, he dogmatically asserted his theory, which he was unable to support with authority and later recanted, that all noncontributory military retirement benefits, whether state or federal, were immune

People v. Wiley

California Supreme Court · Jun 26, 2025

Title 8 of the United States Code section 1326(b) provides for longer sentences if a defendant’s prior deportation occurred after a qualifying conviction. … The latter circumstances clearly go beyond the fact of prior conviction and its elements. (Id. at pp. 82–83.)

Dowhal v. Smithkline Beecham Consumer Healthcare

12 Cal. Rptr. 3d 262 · California Supreme Court · Apr 15, 2004

The agency is likely to have a thorough understanding of its own regulation and its objectives and is ‘uniquely qualified’ to comprehend the likely impact of state requirements.” (Ibid.) … While smoking has clearly been associated with fetal harm, the contribution of nicotine has not been clearly delineated.

Smith v. Goff

38 Cal. 4th 1045 · 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.

Pasadena Hospital Ass'n v. County of Los Angeles

35 Cal. 2d 779 · California Supreme Court · Aug 18, 1950

ante, p. 729 [ 221 P.2d 31 ] the tax exempt status of the portion of the hospital property used for a nurses’ home and for a nurses’ school was sustained, such consideration is of no avail to plaintiff unless plaintiff qualified … nonprofit purpose (Article Second (A) (1)), though the welfare exemption does not extend to all lawful nonprofit purposes and, in fact, expressly excludes certain ones such as fraternal, lodge, or social purposes unless “clearly

Edmiston v. Superior Court

22 Cal. 3d 699 · California Supreme Court · Nov 27, 1978

Defendants argue procedures established in the Sharff, Gonzi, and Ebel line of cases are intended only to afford plaintiff protection against improper inquiries and inaccurate and misleading accounts when examining physicians … Rptr. 669 , 568 P.2d 394 ], which held that the videotape of a deposition was not a writing, the majority conclude that the videotape of a medical examination cannot qualify as the written report of the examining physician

People v. Gates

43 Cal. 3d 1168 · California Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1987

The evidence clearly did not rise to the level of importance to qualify for admission under Green. *1211 Defendant was also denied the opportunity to introduce Calvin Miller’s conviction for second degree murder for which … If the defense chooses to raise the subject it cannot expect immunity from cross-examination on it.

Bollinger v. National Fire Insurance

25 Cal. 2d 399 · California Supreme Court · Dec 6, 1944

From the statement of facts in the complaint, which were not denied, and which, for the purpose of ruling on the demurrer, are therefore to be taken as true, it clearly appears that defendant’s motion for nonsuit should have … Proc., § 351 et seq. ) It is established that the running of the statute of limitations may be suspended by causes not mentioned in the statute itself. (Braun v.

Marriage of Davis

61 Cal. 4th 846 · California Supreme Court · Jul 20, 2015

Although the 1870 Act included no definition of “living separate and apart,” the Legislature clearly contemplated separate addresses for the husband and wife. … In order to qualify as “living separate and apart,” the spouses must have a living arrangement that clearly and objectively signals a complete and final termination of the marital relationship.

El-Attar v. Hollywood Presbyterian Medical Center

56 Cal. 4th 976 · California Supreme Court · Jun 6, 2013

This legislation — passed in response to the federal Health Care Quality Improvement Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 11101–11152), which provides immunity from money damages for peer review actions taken in compliance with the statute‘ … s requirements — established the minimum procedures that hospitals must employ in certain peer review proceedings.

Arthur v. City of Petaluma

175 Cal. 216 · California Supreme Court · May 31, 1917

This is perhaps shown most emphatically and clearly by what is said in Weaver v. … Clearly, the term “ordinary revenue” as used in the Higgins case was understood as including all revenue resulting from taxes levied by the city authorities.

People v. Terry

57 Cal. 2d 538 · California Supreme Court · Apr 19, 1962

Perez, supra, 169 Cal.App.2d at p. 478 ) and the interest of the third person in the defendant clearly stands on no higher ground. The fact that Mrs. … The objection was clearly proper under the well settled rule that it is misconduct for the prosecutor to refer to facts not in evidence in his argument to the jury. (People v.

Hunt v. Authier

28 Cal. 2d 288 · California Supreme Court · Jun 7, 1946

In taking the first step, it lays the entire stress upon the word “property”; gives that word its broadest possible connotation, without regard to the words which surround and qualify it; and thereby construes the section … Goodwin, supra, 170 Cal. 527 , are but a few of the many which establish the settled rule of law that in the absence of an express statutory provision providing for survival, actions for wrongful death do not survive the

Interstate Brands v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board

26 Cal. 3d 770 · California Supreme Court · Apr 10, 1980

Rights which qualify on the first basis, we think, must include those which were considered sufficient to invoke independent review under pre-Bixby law. 6 In holding that plaintiff’s right to be free from erroneous charges … As the Board concedes, this conclusion and the findings made in support of it are clearly supported by substantial evidence in the record and therefore must be sustained on appeal. (See Harlow v.

California Assn. of Psychology Providers v. Rank

51 Cal. 3d 1 · California Supreme Court · Jun 25, 1990

The Department’s regulations, however, establish a hospital hierarchy under which physicians outrank psychologists as to those functions for which both are licensed and qualified. … And the 1980 provision barring “discrimination” against either profession would clearly prohibit a rule that members of one profession have supervisory authority over the other, so we cannot infer an intent to permit such

Tri-Fanucchi Farms v. Agricultural Labor Relations Board

225 Cal. Rptr. 3d 545 · California Supreme Court · Nov 27, 2017

The ALJ granted the motion, holding that even if the facts Tri-Fanucchi sought to prove were true, they did not 4 establish a defense to bargaining under the ALRA. … Norton must be understood in light of the purpose of permitting employers to contest specific administrative actions that would otherwise be immunized from judicial review. (Id. at p. 34; see id. at pp. 30–32.)