Case law

de Racouillat v. Rene

32 Cal. 450 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1867

But must he also deny *455 it, at the risk of having his denial regarded as forming a part of, and qualifying his answer to, another clearly material allegation, rendering the latter denial evasive? We think not. … Besides, no such point was made or relied on in the Court below, but, on the contrary, it clearly appears, that the plaintiffs regarded the notice as being in issue, for they introduced testimony to establish the fact, and

Brosnahan v. Eu

31 Cal. 3d 1 · California Supreme Court · Mar 11, 1982

Such individual exemptions from the rules established by the statutes make a mockery of the whole initiative process. … This initiative, therefore, could be placed on the June 1982 ballot only if it qualified as of January 28, 1982. [1] Clearly, it did not.

People ex rel. Attorney General v. Burbank

12 Cal. 378 · California Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1859

All the proceedings were regular in form, and he was commissioned by the Governor in due form, qualified, and entered upon the office. … As soon as an ordinary is elected, he is in office under the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and immunities conferred by that instrument.”

Zelig v. County of Los Angeles

119 Cal. Rptr. 2d 709 · California Supreme Court · May 20, 2002

Zelig” falls within the immunity of Government Code section 845. … The housing authority clearly was on notice of the danger posed by the perpetrators.

People v. Szeto

29 Cal. 3d 20 · California Supreme Court · Feb 11, 1981

The district attorney replied, “The Evidence Code itself states quite clearly that an expert may rely in part on hearsay to form his opinion, if such would be a proper basis for his opinion, and clearly for a person to be … Clearly, there was not sufficient evidence offered to corroborate Chester Yu’s testimony.

Snyder v. Michael's Stores, Inc.

16 Cal. 4th 991 · California Supreme Court · Oct 30, 1997

We begin with the statutes establishing the exclusive jurisdiction of that system. … The above italicized passages clearly reveal the Bell majority’s critical error.

Spring Valley Water Works v. Board of Supervisors

61 Cal. 18 · California Supreme Court · Jun 30, 1882

The issues made in the case, and the questions upon which the Court is called upon to pass, clearly appear from the pleadings, and I will proceed to examine them with that care and deliberation which their great importance … It may be that no other individual or corporation has laid pipes or introduced water into the city for its use or for the use of the inhabitants thereof, but the right to do so is clearly granted by the Constitution, subject

County of Sacramento v. Superior Court

8 Cal. 3d 479 · California Supreme Court · Dec 19, 1972

a discretionary immunity, but the faulty execution, performance or discharge of the policy or plan established by the decision, once made, may result in liability rather than immunity. … In the administration of a jail facility certain decisions are inherent in determining the intake policy, establishing the nature and kind of custodial institution to be established and maintained, and in the determination

Takahashi v. Fish & Game Commission

30 Cal. 2d 719 · California Supreme Court · Oct 17, 1947

prohibiting citizens of other states and unnaturalized foreign-born residents from fishing in the public waters of the state the state is, in fact, dealing with a property right of the state, and not with a mere privilege or immunity … The Ah Chong case, therefore, is clearly distinguishable on its facts from the issues now before the court.

Brown v. Poway Unified School District

4 Cal. 4th 820 · California Supreme Court · Jan 21, 1993

presumption logically tends to establish. … Instead, one finds cases in which public employees actively created dangerous conditions under circumstances that would clearly justify a presumption of notice on the part of a public employer.

Richards v. Owens-Illinois, Inc.

14 Cal. 4th 985 · California Supreme Court · Jan 23, 1997

The court perceived no material distinction between the employer’s immunity considered in DaFonte and the tobacco companies’ immunity involved in this case. … Section 1714.45 thus did not adopt the “unreasonably dangerous” terminology of Restatement section 402A, and of comment i thereto, but the statute still clearly imports into California law the fundamental premise of comment

City of Los Angeles v. Hance

137 Cal. 490 · California Supreme Court · Oct 16, 1902

corporation, for a writ of mandate to compel the respondent, city clerk of said city, to sign and certify to the passage by the city council of the city of a *491 certain ordinance calling a special election and submitting to the qualified … and we think that this is clearly to be considered as a natural and proper part of the general sewage system of the city.

Rocca v. Thompson

157 Cal. 552 · California Supreme Court · Apr 5, 1910

The treaty of 1903 with China gives Chinese consuls here the same “attributes, privileges and immunities” as those of the most favored nation. (Art. 2, 7 Fed. Stats. Ann. 487.) … This is the grammatical effect of the qualifying clause.

Tashiro v. Jordan

201 Cal. 236 · California Supreme Court · May 20, 1927

as such and not with the privileges and immunities of the citizens and subjects of the several states. … That there is a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of a state, and the privileges and immunities of one are not the same as the other is well established by the decisions of the courts of this country.

People v. Kelii

87 Cal. Rptr. 2d 674 · California Supreme Court · Aug 19, 1999

That subdivision clearly narrows, rather than expands, the jury’s role. … A determination that the defendant is not that person would clearly end the matter.

Blatty v. New York Times Co.

42 Cal. 3d 1033 · California Supreme Court · Dec 29, 1986

The First Amendment establishes its broad zone of protection by means of various rules. … Superior Court, supra, 37 Cal.3d at p. 265 ), and no cause of action “can claim . . . talismanic immunity from constitutional limita *1043 lions’’ (New York Times Co. v.

Longan v. County of Solano

65 Cal. 122 · California Supreme Court · Mar 22, 1884

for township organization, under which any county may organize whenever a majority of the qualified electors of such county, voting at a general election, shall so determine; and whenever a county shall adopt township organization … The legislature is a co-ordinate branch of the State government, and the courts should never declare its acts invalid unless clearly in conflict with the Constitution. We see no such conflict in this case.

City of San Mateo v. Railroad Commission

9 Cal. 2d 1 · California Supreme Court · May 26, 1937

That section in subparagraph (a) has likewise since 1911 prohibited the establishment of new grade crossings without the consent of the commission. … The immunity from legislative control is limited to municipal affairs and to the extent specified by sections 6 and 11 of the same article.

Becker v. Lindsay

16 Cal. 3d 188 · California Supreme Court · Feb 13, 1976

We think that the Legislature in all likelihood reworded section 1241(4) to make certain that the section clearly expressed upon its face the coverage which the courts had previously accorded it. … Prior to amendment, then, no section had clearly embraced the other varieties of consensual liens. It was not surprising that the Legislature changed the word in both sections in order to keep them parallel.

In Re Estate of Marshall

176 Cal. 784 · California Supreme Court · Dec 18, 1917

The appeal of Maria Chavez and Maria Ochoa contents itself with attacking the sufficiency of the evidence establishing the kinship of the respondent, without attempting to disclose evidence establishing the kinship of the … Clearly we think it is not.