Case law

Gerken v. Fair Political Practices Commission

6 Cal. 4th 707 · California Supreme Court · Dec 20, 1993

Proposition 68, by contrast, proposed to impose contribution limitations on state legislative candidates, and further proposed to impose expenditure limitations on those qualified candidates who elected to receive partially … As explained below, the section that most clearly and easily meets this requirement is section 89001, the ban on publicly funded mass mailings.

Union Oil Associates v. Johnson

2 Cal. 2d 727 · California Supreme Court · Mar 26, 1935

In the instant case our constitutional amendment and legislation were enacted to establish a mode of taxation which would comply with the federal permissive statute. … By the allegations of said complaint plaintiff brings itself clearly within *737 the federal definition of a holding company.

Ex parte Newman

9 Cal. 502 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1858

no preference for any religious establishment or mode of worship.” … But before the legitimate and just inference arising from the general acquiescence of the learned can be avoided, the error in the principles recognized should be clearly shown.

Greene v. Committee of Bar Examiners

4 Cal. 3d 189 · California Supreme Court · Feb 25, 1971

The burden of proving good moral character is upon the applicant, who must initially furnish sufficient evidence of good moral character to establish a prima facie case. … The application form provides only two lines of space for the applicant’s answer to the question regarding civil litigation in which he had been a party, but it clearly directs, “Use an attached sheet if necessary.”

Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. Padilla

California Supreme Court · Jan 4, 2016

The state Constitution does not otherwise clearly address the matter. … (See The Federalist No. 44, supra, at pp. 304– 305 (Madison) [“No axiom is more clearly established in law, or in reason, than that wherever the end is required, the means are authorized; wherever a general power to do a

Bland v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board

3 Cal. 3d 324 · California Supreme Court · Oct 26, 1970

Believing that the doctor’s letter could not qualify as a pleading because it did not come from Beaida’s attorney of record, the board concluded it lacked jurisdiction to reopen. … If the letter in Beaida constituted a sufficient “petition by a party in interest” to toll the five-year statute of limitations, clearly petitioner’s application in the present case served to do so.

College Hospital, Inc. v. Superior Court

8 Cal. 4th 704 · California Supreme Court · Oct 31, 1994

Further narrowing of the class of permissible claims might be inferred from use of the adjective “substantial” to qualify “probability.” … (k)(2)(A) [oil spills/immunity], 37606, subd. (c)(2) [municipal hospitals/meetings]; Health & Saf.

Warden v. State Bar of California

88 Cal. Rptr. 2d 283 · California Supreme Court · Aug 26, 1999

But I assume with equal justification that all attorneys are current in their legal knowledge when they first qualify for admission to the State Bar. … Subdivision (b) of the same section provides: "A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens."

People v. Superior Court

53 Cal. 4th 839 · California Supreme Court · Mar 5, 2012

set out in section 2600[.l] of the CCR is clearly erroneous. … We do not accord deference to an interpretation that is clearly erroneous. (Bonnell v.

Royal Globe Insurance v. Superior Court

23 Cal. 3d 880 · California Supreme Court · Mar 29, 1979

The majority finds the present action “premature,” because plaintiff has not yet established the insured’s liability. … The remedies for these administrative infractions are clearly defined in sections 790.05-790.09.

Yahoo Inc. v. Nat. Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA

California Supreme Court · Nov 17, 2022

With respect to this advertisement injury exclusion, the content of the advertisement is clearly referenced by the word “material” because the provision uses the phrase “material in your ‘advertisement.’ ” (Italics added … In this context, it also merits noting that merely removing an exclusion for TCPA liability is not, by itself, enough to establish coverage of such liability. (See Waller v. Truck Ins.

Whiting Finance Co. v. Hopkins

199 Cal. 428 · California Supreme Court · Sep 30, 1926

That contracts of this character constitute “solvent credits,” whether they relate to real or personal property, has, we think, been established with a fair degree of uniformity. … The fact that the seller holds the naked title to the property with such qualified right of repossession does not, in our opinion, render the transaction other than one whereby an unqualified credit is created and secured

Doyle v. State Bar

32 Cal. 3d 12 · California Supreme Court · Aug 5, 1982

The constitutional right of privacy may immunize from disclosure financial records in the custody of third parties. Thus, in Burrows v. … Although the State Bar was unable to secure client Payne’s consent to disclosure of his records, good cause for such disclosure clearly existed.

Galanty v. Paul Revere Life Insurance

97 Cal. Rptr. 2d 67 · California Supreme Court · Jun 19, 2000

An incontestability clause “does not condone fraud but merely establishes a time limit within which it must be raised.” (Amex Life Assurance Co. v. Superior Court, supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 1237 .) … The insured, who was HIV positive, had falsely represented on his application that he had no immune deficiency disorder. 8 Penn Mut. Life Ins. Co. v.

People v. Cummings

4 Cal. 4th 1233 · California Supreme Court · Apr 29, 1993

It clearly was. … Whether any shot had been fired within the car, regardless of location, front or back seat, was not clearly established by the evidence.

Moulton v. Parks

64 Cal. 166 · California Supreme Court · Sep 22, 1883

Parks, was thereupon duly elected one of the trustees of said reclamation district, and he then and there qualified and acted as one of said trustees. … The judgment against the defendant Santee is clearly erroneous. The findings in no way connect Santee with any of the acts claimed to be wrongful.

People v. Jones

54 Cal. 4th 1 · California Supreme Court · May 7, 2012

That criterion is clearly met here. … DiTraglia was qualified as a forensic pathologist.

Ranger v. Alamitos Bay Yacht Club

California Supreme Court · Feb 27, 2025

Had the LHWCA intended to abrogate general maritime remedies for every worker who was not an employee as defined in the act, one would expect to see that intent expressed more clearly. … Accordingly, the exclusion of club workers from the ambit of the LHWCA did not clearly signal these workers fell outside the broad parameters of admiralty jurisdiction and the reverse-Erie doctrine.

Bronco Wine Company v. Jolly

17 Cal. Rptr. 3d 180 · California Supreme Court · Oct 13, 2004

Indeed, the act “disclose[d] very clearly that it [was] not intended to trench upon the powers of the states in any respect.” (Cleveland Macaroni Co. v. … The Department and the NVVA, asserting that these cases are distinguishable, rely upon other high court cases holding that, in certain circumstances, possession of a federal license does not confer immunity “from the operation

K.J. v. Los Angeles Unified School District

California Supreme Court · Jan 30, 2020

Clearly, the appellant was seeking to have reviewed the propriety of the order sustaining the demurrer . . . . … LAUSD has presented no authority suggesting that, in this context, allowing an opposing party to present the merits of his or her appeal qualifies as a cognizable form of “prejudice.”