Case law

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.”

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

Palmer v. City of Long Beach

33 Cal. 2d 134 · California Supreme Court · Nov 26, 1948

Defendant's reliance upon the foregoing cases is based upon the erroneous assumption that the evidence herein, although conflicting, clearly establishes that the depth of the hole was not greater than an inch. … In thus qualifying the appellate court opinion the Supreme Court undoubtedly had in mind its earlier decision in Gett v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co., 192 Cal. 621 [ 221 P. 376 ].

Hamilton v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd.

95 Cal. Rptr. 2d 701 · California Supreme Court · May 15, 2000

Ordinarily the body’s immune system will detect and eliminate cells having such mutations. … But Mitchell may not have clearly understood the distinction between the two types of consolidation, and in any event his motion was not so limited: Mitchell moved for “an order consolidating Action No. 955576 with Action

Appeal of Piper

32 Cal. 530 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1867

The rule is not peculiar to this Court; it is an established principle in the practice of all appellate Courts. … , 433.) * * * These reports of .Commissioners, in respect to values, are in the nature of a verdict of a jury upon a question of fact, which is never set aside as against evidence unless it appear affirmatively and *542 clearly

City of Los Angeles v. Cole

28 Cal. 2d 509 · California Supreme Court · Jun 27, 1946

In my opinion the cases heretofore cited which hold that the sales of other similar property are not admissible to prove value are clearly unsound and should be overruled. … Their relative immunity from irrelevant influences is merely a matter of degree, and their reasonable freedom therefrom purely a matter of proof.

People v. Harmon

54 Cal. 2d 9 · California Supreme Court · Apr 8, 1960

Harmon on the promises of any leniency or immunity being made to you [sic] ? A. It was. “Q. It was given to you without any threats being made upon Mr. Harmon? A. Yes.” … “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.” (Aetna Cas. & Surety Co. v.

People v. Dungo12/12/12 SC

California Supreme Court · Dec 12, 2012

But Crawford did not adopt a particular definition, noting only that ―some statements qualify under any definition.‖ (Id. at p. 52.) … Washington (2004) 541 U.S. 36 (Crawford), the Supreme Court established that it is the ―testimonial‖ nature of a statement that gives rise to Sixth Amendment protections.1 The Supreme Court has yet to clearly define just

Shiver v. Liberty Building-Loan Assn.

16 Cal. 2d 296 · California Supreme Court · Oct 4, 1940

Drapeau, 14 Cal.2d 102 [92 PaCal.2d 911, 125 A.L.R. 800 ], are not inconsistent if the facts of each case are kept clearly in mind. … The securing of a second lien by the creditor without such disclosure is clearly in violation of the letter and spirit of the statute and regulations."

People v. Whitt

51 Cal. 3d 620 · California Supreme Court · Oct 25, 1990

Because intent to kill was not clearly an element of the felony-murder special circumstance for actual killers at the time of defendant’s crimes, Anderson applies. … We have previously rejected analogous claims to a “right of allocution” in capital penalty trials, observing that the defendant is entitled to no unique immunity from examination by the People. (People v.

Shoemaker v. Myers

52 Cal. 3d 1 · California Supreme Court · Dec 20, 1990

While it may appear that both statutes are applicable, section 19683 was clearly the more specific statute, and therefore was controlling. (See People v. … Additional Issues Defendants raise a number of additional issues, including claims that they are immune from “malicious prosecution” (Gov.

Lamden v. La Jolla Shores Clubdominium Homeowners Ass'n

87 Cal. Rptr. 2d 237 · California Supreme Court · Aug 9, 1999

“The common law business judgment rule has two components— one which immunizes [corporate] directors from personal liability if they act in accordance with its requirements, and another which insulates from court intervention … Here, the Board exercised discretion clearly within the scope of its authority under the Declaration and governing statutes to select among means for discharging its obligation to maintain and repair the Development’s common

People v. McCreery

34 Cal. 432 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1868

We have this point established by these cases (The Peoples. Naglee, and The People v. … Provision is made in the section that taxes upon property shall be levied ad valorem, that the valuation of the property shall be made in a mode to be prescribed by law, and by *457 Assessors to be elected by the qualified

Buxbom v. Smith

23 Cal. 2d 535 · California Supreme Court · Jan 18, 1944

Cas. 332, 11 L.R.A.N.S. 201 ].) [12] This immunity against liability is not retained, however, if unfair methods are used in interfering in such advantageous relations. … Fraud is never presumed; it must be clearly proved and the presumption of fair dealing approximates that of innocence of crime.

Pryor v. Downey

50 Cal. 388 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1875

administrator, but that a conditional order only was made to the effect that he should become administrator, on giving security by filing the bond required by law; and it is further found that he never filed such bond, or otherwise qualified … Such questions as are judicial in their nature are not to be settled arbitrarily or capriciously, but by the application of fixed rules and established principles.

People v. Bacon

50 Cal. 4th 1082 · California Supreme Court · Oct 21, 2010

Because defendant’s statement contains several ambiguous qualifying words (“I think,” “probably,” and “it’d”), we do not consider defendant’s statement to be sufficiently clear in and of itself. … prosecution for the same offense, an accomplice’s testimony may be strongly influenced by the hope or expectation that the prosecution will reward testimony that supports the prosecution’s case by granting the accomplice immunity

Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. Lyons

101 Cal. Rptr. 2d 470 · California Supreme Court · Nov 27, 2000

These words are “qualified only by” those that follow (Pines v. … The “test” of Abood and Keller would “clearly” be “satisfied in this case because ... the generic advertising ... is unquestionably germane to the purposes of the marketing order[] . . . .” (Glickman v.

People v. Zambrano

63 Cal. Rptr. 3d 297 · California Supreme Court · Jul 30, 2007

Defendant took elaborate steps to establish an alibi for the Mishell beatings. … “Under . . . current [law], every person is qualified to testify except as provided by statute. (Evid. Code, § 700.)

State of California v. Superior Court (Fogerty)

29 Cal. 3d 240 · California Supreme Court · Mar 20, 1981

These arguments appear to oppose the established public trust doctrine in principle, rather than its application to the shorezone as such. … These homeowners, and thousands of farmers will suffer thousands of "great injustices," clearly outweighing the public trust loss in respect to individual lands. ( 3 Cal.3d at p. 501 .)