Case law

Cooper v. State Board of Medical Examiners

35 Cal. 2d 242 · California Supreme Court · Apr 28, 1950

descriptive language, while holding licenses as a drugless practitioner and as a clinical laboratory technologist, and (count 9) the penetration of tissue incidental to the giving of a blood transfusion at the direction of a qualified … [which] is established if . . . the order or decision is not supported by the findings . . .

Payne & Dewey v. Treadwell

16 Cal. 220 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1860

It is a pleadable and issuable fact, to be established by conveyances from a paramount source of title, or by evidence of prior possession. … The averment is clearly a mere statement of a conclusion of law. In Payne et al. v.

In Re Cox

3 Cal. 3d 205 · California Supreme Court · Oct 1, 1970

Thus, in Stoumen and Orloff this court clearly established that the Civil Rights Act prohibited all arbitrary discrimination in public accommodations. … generally open to the public from arbitrarily excluding a prospective customer, we do not imply that the establishment may never insist that a patron leave the premises. 12 Clearly, an entrepreneur need not tolerate customers

People v. Superior Court (Jones)

76 Cal. Rptr. 2d 641 · California Supreme Court · Jul 20, 1998

It ruled that the minors carried their burden of establishing *676 that they were fit subjects for treatment under the juvenile court law. … Such a result is impossible to reconcile with the language of [the statute], which clearly does not create a mandatory or irrebuttable presumption.”

King v. Central Bank

18 Cal. 3d 840 · California Supreme Court · Jan 6, 1977

Reasor Corp., supra, 69 Cal.2d 881, in rejecting an attempt to construe narrowly the act’s definition of “services”: “Section 1802.2 clearly includes all services *845 provided for personal purposes, except for the specifically … Yet the provisions of the Insurance Premium Financing Act apply only to those companies organized and qualified to act as “premium finance agencies.” (See Fin. Code, §§ 18003.1, 18904, 18930.)

Barber v. Galloway

195 Cal. 1 · California Supreme Court · Dec 1, 1924

levee district, for the purpose of paying the bonds of said district, there is no provision in that section that such property shall not be assessable and the provisions of the sections 12, 26, and 27, herein referred to, clearly … The provisions of the constitution forbidding discrimination as among citizens with respect to privileges and immunities and the provision of law with respect to qualifications of electors and the secrecy of the ballot are

Livingstone v. MacGillivray

1 Cal. 2d 546 · California Supreme Court · Oct 1, 1934

The city of Oakland was governed by a freeholders’ charter which contained provisions establishing a civil service system. … The inquiry called for the expression of a pure conclusion on the part of the witness and was therefore clearly improper.” The judgment is affirmed.

In Re the Estate of Hayne

165 Cal. 568 · California Supreme Court · Jun 5, 1913

It is the established rule that no special form, nor even the signature of the decedent, is required to constitute a charge of the advancement in writing as prescribed by such statutes. … Hayne that William Alston Hayne had received property, by way of advancement, amounting to more than his share of the estate, is clearly a sufficient charge in writing to constitute legal evidence of an advancement, under

Ford & Vlahos v. ITT Commercial Finance Corp.

8 Cal. 4th 1220 · California Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1994

But the advertisement apparently inadvertently omitted the information about whom to contact to qualify as a bidder. … The foregoing reasoning clearly applies to the sale of an airplane. (Dyna lectron Corporation v. Jack Richards Aircraft Co. (W.D.Okla. 1972) 337 *1231 F.Supp. 659, 662-663.)

Englund v. Chavez

8 Cal. 3d 572 · California Supreme Court · Dec 29, 1972

The Association committee which had been established to approach the Teamsters worked quickly. … The terms of section 1117, however, specifically preclude a later-appearing union from claiming a perpetual “immunity” under the Act, for the section bars relief only where one of the labor organizations is found to have

In Re Reeves

28 Cal. Rptr. 3d 4 · California Supreme Court · May 9, 2005

As I have already explained, when it passed section 2933.1, the Legislature clearly knew how to adopt language conveying this limitation in scope, but chose not to. … Nothing in the legislative history suggests that the Legislature intended to establish the two-tiered credit system the majority adopts.

People v. Buza

230 Cal. Rptr. 3d 681 · California Supreme Court · Apr 2, 2018

The federal legislation establishing CODIS likewise requires participating states to “promptly expunge” the DNA profile of any person who is cleared of qualifying charges. (34 U.S.C. § 12592(d)(2)(A).) … crime, or against whom qualifying charges will ultimately be dismissed.

Sharon v. Sharon, 11991 (Cal. 7-17-1889)

79 Cal. 633 · California Supreme Court · Jul 17, 1889

portion last quoted) the qualifying words are “ although this relation was kept secret.” … The defendant was clearly injured by its exclusion, and therefore I am for reversing the order denying the motion for a new trial.

Fahey v. Gledhill

33 Cal. 3d 884 · California Supreme Court · May 26, 1983

The above rules establish the rights and liabilities of the parties in the absence of a valid agreement to the contrary. … By excluding liability for any loss of or damage to the vessel from any cause whatsoever, the agreement clearly and unequivocally describes the scope of the loss. 4 However, it does not clearly and unequivocally reflect the

Steven A. v. Rickie M.

1 Cal. 4th 816 · California Supreme Court · Feb 20, 1992

Clearly, the father is treated unfairly under section 7004, subdivision (a), but equally important is the loss to the child. … We therefore shall use the term “presumed father” to mean a man who qualifies under section 7004 and “natural father” to mean a biological father who does not so qualify. ( 39 Cal.3d at p. 790, fn. 1 .)

Sears v. Rule

27 Cal. 2d 131 · California Supreme Court · Nov 1, 1945

Defendant qualified as executor and proceeded to administer the estate. … No language could more clearly indicate that Charles was not to become the sole beneficiary or distributee of the entire estate.”

People v. Reyes

12 Cal. 3d 486 · California Supreme Court · Sep 17, 1974

Whether the conclusion is based upon observation of an act, condition or event or upon sound reason or whether the person forming it is qualified to form it and testify to it can only be established by the examination of … Clearly these comments did not contribute to the verdict. (People v.

People v. Richardson

43 Cal. 4th 959 · California Supreme Court · May 22, 2008

Marshall in the future,” as well as told the jury that Marshall had not been offered immunity. … At Brown’s trial, Marshall testified on direct examination that he had been offered immunity “to charges other than murder” if he told police what had happened at the Holley residence, but had not been “granted immunity in

Higgins v. L.A. Gas & Electric Co.

159 Cal. 651 · California Supreme Court · Apr 7, 1911

The gun was offered by the defendant to establish his contention in this regard. … Eebman qualified as an expert of twenty-two years’ experience as a contractor and builder.

Greve v. Leger, Ltd.

64 Cal. 2d 853 · California Supreme Court · Jul 14, 1966

Obviously section 24076 undertakes to qualify this otherwise unlimited contractual freedom to transfer licenses by prohibiting contracts for such transfers which afford “security” to one of the parties. … -In my opinion the Legislature has clearly and unequivocally demonstrated its intent (1) to forbid agreements such as the one here in issue, and (2) to render any such agreement unenforceable either by way of specific performance