Case law

Nally v. Grace Community Church

47 Cal. 3d 278 · California Supreme Court · Nov 23, 1988

In this context, the Court of Appeal held that nontherapist counselors—both religious and secular—have a duty to refer suicidal persons to psychiatrists or psychotherapists qualified to prevent suicides. … Clearly, there was a basis for the trial court’s ruling that admission of the tape created substantial danger of misleading the jury and prejudicing the defendants.”

People v. Valenzuela

247 Cal. Rptr. 3d 651 · California Supreme Court · Jun 3, 2019

As described ante , defendant cannot establish entitlement to relief under the resentencing procedure of section 1170.18, subdivision (a). … Although the majority opinion does not clearly say so, this is an entirely different argument for granting relief.

Telefilm, Inc. v. Superior Court

33 Cal. 2d 289 · California Supreme Court · Jan 21, 1949

Superior Court, supra, 3 Cal.2d 19 , the advantage of having a motion for a new trial heard and determined by “the judge who presided at the trial, if . . . available,” since he “is best qualified to rule” thereon because … Nelson, 30 Cal.2d 162, 164 [ 180 P.2d 886 ]), it clearly could not constitute any so-called “election” or “waiver,” and as a circumstance occurring after entry of the order granting a new trial, it would have no relevancy

People v. Lamar

148 Cal. 564 · California Supreme Court · Jan 29, 1906

Underhill, having qualified himself to speak on the subject, on inquiry as to the reputation of the deceased for those traits, stated that it was good. … The general rule on this point is already clearly stated in the foregoing authorities, and any extended discussion of it is unnecessary.

Kimic v. San Jose-Los Gatos Interurban Ry.

156 Cal. 379 · California Supreme Court · Oct 25, 1909

The well-established custom of appellant’s ears was to slow up on approaching the crossing and then to cross without stopping. Appellant’s motorman, W. B. … The proposed evidence was clearly incompetent.

Paz v. State of California

93 Cal. Rptr. 2d 703 · California Supreme Court · Mar 20, 2000

If a traffic intersection is dangerous for reasons other than the failure to provide regulatory signals or street markings, the statute provides no immunity.” … A number of articles in a neighborhood newsletter, which also are included in the record, confirm that the residents of the neighborhood very clearly relied upon the developer to install the traffic signal.

People v. Frye

77 Cal. Rptr. 2d 25 · California Supreme Court · Sep 23, 1998

In October 1985, she entered into a written immunity agreement with the Amador County District Attorney. … Such evidence clearly has no bearing on any aspect of defendant's record or character. (Cf. People v.

People v. Modesto

62 Cal. 2d 436 · California Supreme Court · Feb 11, 1965

Quite to the contrary it carefully and correctly held that such a conflict existed but that the state, by the 1934 amendment, had qualified that right. … Rptr. 169 , 398 P.2d 361 ], the recited facts of that case clearly show that the majority ruling therein was not compelled by Escobedo .

Hise v. McColgan

24 Cal. 2d 147 · California Supreme Court · Apr 21, 1944

The italicized words clearly imply that the commissioner ’s possession of such association constitutes an ouster of corporate management and control, with the accompanying advantages and privileges; and that the association … Realty Corp., 316 U.S. 69 [ 62 S.Ct. 922 , 86 L.Ed. 1278 ], cited in the main opinion as illustrating that liquidation proceedings may establish that a corporation is “doing business” within the concept of franchise' tax

People v. Anderson

25 Cal. 4th 543 · California Supreme Court · May 14, 2001

Under the current system, as before, every person is qualified to testify except as provided by statute. (Evid. Code, § 700.) … Under the circumstances, their inclusion was clearly within the court’s discretion.

Adoption of Michael H.

10 Cal. 4th 1043 · California Supreme Court · Jul 31, 1995

[and] he clearly planned with Stephanie to give the child up." (Italics added.) … Kelsey S. did not, however, strike down the statutory scheme for "presumed" fathers; instead, it established a nonstatutory alternative whereby a biological father could qualify for the same parental rights as those afforded

In Re Estate of Broome

162 Cal. 258 · California Supreme Court · Mar 2, 1912

The widow was appointed and qualified as executrix of the will on the twenty-fifth day of July, 1891, thereupon entered on the administration of the estate, and so continued as executrix (the quotations are from the findings … The administrator was clearly entitled to extra compensation, the *264 fixing of the amount of which, of course, primarily vests in the probate court. 2.

Spellens v. Spellens

49 Cal. 2d 210 · California Supreme Court · Oct 30, 1957

App. 297 [ 291 P. 647 ], is clearly distinguishable in that it did not involve the facts here present. The award of attorney's fees presents another question however. … The rule of interspousal immunity for personal torts was recently applied in Watson v. Watson (1952), 39 Cal.2d 305 [ 246 P.2d 19 ].

People v. Whitmer

59 Cal. 4th 733 · California Supreme Court · Jul 24, 2014

Such cases do not qualify, and never have qualified, for prosecution as a single offense under the single-impulse rule. … Cuellar (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 833, 837 [ 81 Cal.Rptr.3d 252 ] [“petty theft is merely theft that does not qualify as grand theft. . .”].)

Chambers v. Satterlee

40 Cal. 497 · California Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1871

Palmer,) must be considered as definitively established here. The validity of the proceedings resulting in the assessment is, however, questioned upon other grounds. … Besides, if the signatures of the engineers were ever material for that purpose, they clearly ceased to be so, upon the passage of the Act to ratify and confirm certain or-inances, etc, (Acts 1865, p. 166.)

People v. Perrone C.

26 Cal. 3d 49 · California Supreme Court · Dec 12, 1979

The practice of issuing "by the court" opinions is subject to the abuse of overuse because there are no clearly established limits for its proper exercise. … When a balancing test is applied, the dangers of anonymity and overuse clearly outweigh any perceived benefits.

People v. Gonzalez

233 Cal. Rptr. 3d 791 · California Supreme Court · Jun 4, 2018

Anthony Stephen Kalac was granted use immunity and testified against defendants. … Still, our case law establishes that a true felony-murder special- circumstance finding can render such error harmless.

Potvin v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.

95 Cal. Rptr. 2d 496 · California Supreme Court · May 8, 2000

Meghrigian, San Francisco, for the California Medical Association, the American Medical Association, the Immune Deficiency Foundation, Breast Cancer Action and the Temporomandibular Joint Dysfunction Society as Amicus Curiae … Damrell, then, like Kreamer , is perfectly consistent with the principle that the majority now repudiates—that a court should not refuse to enforce a contract as being contrary to public policy unless that policy is *513 clearly

Bradshaw v. California Employment Stabilization Commission

46 Cal. 2d 608 · California Supreme Court · Jun 4, 1956

That language *612 alone is insufficient to establish that the dismissal payments were made "with respect to" a period before discharge and thus would not be duplicated by an award of unemployment compensation. [9] A holding … In the case now before us, the first of those requirements clearly exists. Upon election to receive severance pay, the employment was completely severed. No claim is made that other employment was obtained.

Chicago Title Insurance v. Great Western Financial Corp.

69 Cal. 2d 305 · California Supreme Court · Aug 28, 1968

leave to amend and the complaint was stricken upon appellants’ representation that no further facts could be alleged. [3] We shall consider primarily the merits of that decision and, unless at least one cause of action is clearly … Where complainants are unsuccessful in establishing an action for conduct which “may . . . tend to create a monopoly” (Bus. & Prof.