Case law

People v. Lynch

California Supreme Court · Aug 1, 2024

But what qualifies as an “element” that must be so proved? … The “clearly indicates” standard does not apply.

Tripp v. Swoap

17 Cal. 3d 671 · California Supreme Court · Aug 3, 1976

At the very beginning of the memorandum decision and immediately preceding the above summary of evidence, it is clearly and explicitly stated that “The trial court’s review of this decision is confined to the issue of whether … While it is *684 true that governmental entities traditionally have been immune from liability for interest, Civil Code section 3287 as amended in 1959 provides a clear statutory exception to the general rule, and this exception

In Re Morales

35 Cal. 3d 1 · California Supreme Court · Nov 17, 1983

Further, petitioner’s decision to allocate his available funds to other creditors, rather than to the state, was clearly wilful. … His misdemeanor convictions established that petitioner had breached his duty to pay the taxes in question. The use of a corporate shell did not relieve him from responsibility for his omissions.

Peterson v. Lamb Rubber Co.

54 Cal. 2d 339 · California Supreme Court · Jun 23, 1960

exceptions to the privity rule had earlier been stated to be (1) the foodstuff exception which plainly was not involved in the case, and (2) the express warranty exception, the court’s reference to “some exception,” was clearly … The witness was not permitted to answer the last question, on objections that he was not qualified regarding glasses, no proper foundation had been laid, whether they looked like safety glasses to the witness or not would

Garfinkle v. Superior Court

21 Cal. 3d 268 · California Supreme Court · May 16, 1978

We conclude therefore that California’s nonjudicial foreclosure procedure does not constitute state action and is therefore immune from the procedural due process requirements of the federal Constitution. … apparently suggest that the fact that the article I, section 7 due process clause, unlike former article I, section 13, was enacted as a separate provision independent from provisions relating to criminal prosecutions, which are clearly

Amador Valley Joint Union High School District v. State Board of Equalization

22 Cal. 3d 208 · California Supreme Court · Sep 22, 1978

Rather, our sole function is to evaluate article XIII A legally in the light of established constitutional standards. … We held in McFadden that the measure under scrutiny therein was clearly a revision, both because of its varied aspects and because of the “substantial curtailment]” of governmental functions which it would cause.

Governing Board of Rialto Unified School District v. Mann

18 Cal. 3d 819 · California Supreme Court · Jan 6, 1977

A long well-established line of California decisions conclusively refutes plaintiff’s contention. … By parity of reasoning, the present trial court judgment in favor of the school district clearly cannot stand.

Stevens v. Parke, Davis & Co.

9 Cal. 3d 51 · California Supreme Court · Mar 14, 1973

In the case at bench, the oral statements made by the trial judge at the hearing of the motions clearly do not satisfy this requirement. … However, mere compliance with regulations or directives as to warnings, such as those issued by the United States Food and Drug Administration here, may not be sufficient to immunize the manufacturer or supplier of the drug

People v. Martinez

47 Cal. 4th 399 · California Supreme Court · Aug 13, 2009

As defendant urges, jurors who are firmly opposed to the death penalty are qualified to serve if they “state clearly that they are willing to temporarily set aside their own beliefs in deference to the rule of law.” … Defendant claims D.F. was less qualified to serve than either B.S. or E.H.

People v. Tilbury

54 Cal. 3d 56 · California Supreme Court · Aug 1, 1991

(e), italics added.) 2 If the Legislature had intended to require juries at placement hearings, it knew how to say so clearly. … Section 1026.2, subdivision (e), sets out the standards that a committed person must satisfy to qualify for outpatient treatment, the first stage, and for unconditional release, the second stage.

General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Gandy

200 Cal. 284 · California Supreme Court · Jan 21, 1927

The estoppel must be so established as to leave nothing to surmise or questionable inference. … (Bigelow on Estoppel, 5th ed., pp. 570-578, inch) Clearly, the estoppel claimed here does not measure up to the requirements of the above rules relating to the establishment of equitable estoppel.

People v. Clark

3 Cal. 4th 41 · California Supreme Court · Jul 30, 1992

the witness was not personally qualified to interpret. … It was clearly offered in mitigation.

Topanga Ass'n v. County of Los Angeles

11 Cal. 3d 506 · California Supreme Court · May 17, 1974

It also contemplates that at best, only a small fraction of any one zone can qualify for a variance. (See generally 3 Anderson, American Law of Zoning (1968) § 14.69, pp. 62-65.) … Clearly the Legislature did not intend that cities and counties to which the provisions of chapter 4 apply should have such unfettered discretion.

People v. Otto

2 Cal. 4th 1088 · California Supreme Court · Jul 9, 1992

As parties to the taped conversations, both defendants here clearly meet the statutory definition of “aggrieved person.” … The Simpson court also based its decision on the doctrine of interspousal immunity, speculating that Congress did not intend to intrude into an area normally left to the states.

Phelan v. Superior Court

35 Cal. 2d 363 · California Supreme Court · May 9, 1950

There is nothing in the record before us which establishes that no consent was given. … It is clear, therefore, that the order here cannot qualify as a conditional order.

People v. Carrera

49 Cal. 3d 291 · California Supreme Court · Aug 17, 1989

The admission of photographs of a victim lies within the discretion of the trial court, and the exercise of that discretion will not be disturbed on appeal unless the probative value of the photographs is clearly outweighed … That the failure to give advance notice of the testimony was error, however, does not establish that it was prejudicial on that ground.

People v. Mitchell

California Supreme Court · May 18, 2026

She also admitted that she had previously been convicted of robbery, qualifying her for sentencing under the Three Strikes law. … That statute prohibits the practice of including plea bargain terms that would immunize the plea from modification by future changes in the law.

People v. Cunningham

61 Cal. 4th 609 · California Supreme Court · Jul 2, 2015

We discern at least one race-neutral reason for excusing Prospective Juror D.W. that is ―apparent from and ‗clearly established‘ in the record.‖ (People v. Scott (June 8, 2015, S064858) __ Cal.4th __ [at p. 20].) … In sum, the court‘s ruling clearly was not manifestly erroneous or arbitrary. 2.

Blache v. Blache

37 Cal. 2d 531 · California Supreme Court · Jul 6, 1951

It is established by both statute and judicial decision that in the absence of agreement by the attorneys (or by the parties if not represented by counsel), such use of the evidence at a former trial may be permitted only … The judge who tried the ease the second time was no better qualified than was the appellate court to evaluate the truth of vague, evasive and self-contradictory testimony of a witness whom he had not observed. 2 On the question

Ex parte Burke

59 Cal. 6 · California Supreme Court · Jul 15, 1881

no preference for any religious establishment or mode of worship. … The foregoing citation of authorities is sufficient to show very clearly and conclusively that Sunday laws have received *19 the sanction and support of many of the highest Courts of the Union, and so far as my examination