Case law

Fireside Bank v. Superior Court

56 Cal. Rptr. 3d 861 · California Supreme Court · Apr 16, 2007

Contrary to the Court of Appeal’s intimation, the rules have clearly defined parameters; contrary to Fireside Bank’s argument, they are not sacrosanct, in recognition of the broad discretion trial courts rightfully possess … Whether Gonzalez’s father made threats is a simple factual question; likewise, whether he qualifies as a “person liable on the contract” may be determined by easy reference to the parties’ agreement.

Board of Port Commissioners v. Williams

9 Cal. 2d 381 · California Supreme Court · Jul 30, 1937

The validity of the act and the leases entered into thereunder was established by this court in City of Oakland v. Larue Wharf etc. Co., 179 Cal. 207 [ 176 Pac. 361 ], (See, also, City of Oakland v. … The rule of construction that ‘relative and qualifying words, phrases and clauses are to be applied to the words or phrases immediately preceding and are not to be construed as extending to or including others more remote

Ex Parte McDonough

170 Cal. 230 · California Supreme Court · May 24, 1915

But such prior employment is attempted to be established by several indirect averments. … And if the prior existence of the relation is not established, the communication lacks in privilege.

Newman v. Emerson Radio Corp.

48 Cal. 3d 973 · California Supreme Court · May 25, 1989

The retroactive application of Foley does not give effect to the parties’ expectations; it gives the employer an immunity from tort damages he did not expect, and takes from the worker a remedy he thought he possessed. … This purpose even more clearly points to a prospective application of the decision. One can only predict the future. Nothing we do can alter or facilitate past predictions. All we can do is fulfill or disappoint them.

Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc.

16 Cal. 4th 953 · California Supreme Court · Aug 28, 1997

In the appeal taken by defendant Owens-Illinois from the judgment of damages recovered by Richards, we recently held that the immunity accorded by Civil Code section 1714.45 to suppliers of certain unhealthy consumer products … such as tobacco represents a legislative judgment that, to the extent of the immunity afforded, such companies have no “fault" or responsibility, in the legal sense, for harm caused by their products, and that such companies

Forest Lawn Co. v. City Council

60 Cal. 2d 516 · California Supreme Court · Nov 21, 1963

The very nature of the work performed by the assessor qualifies him as an agency more adept than the council for the task of apportionment. … The decision clearly does not support the plaintiff’s position in the present ease. In Santa Bariara the city council attempted to ignore or circumvent the assessment roll.

People v. Hartsch

49 Cal. 4th 472 · California Supreme Court · Jun 28, 2010

But the testimony clearly established that he was sitting on the passenger side of the truck, and that the person seated there had pointed a gun at the victim. 37 Relying on People v. … Rather, he claims some of it was too far removed from the circumstances of the crime to qualify as proper victim impact testimony.

Wood v. Public Utilities Commission

4 Cal. 3d 288 · California Supreme Court · Mar 8, 1971

Rule 6 of the telephone company sets forth seven guidelines for establishing credit, as follows: "Each applicant for telephone service will be required to establish credit, which will be deemed established upon qualifying … Establishment of Credit "Each applicant for telephone service will be required to establish credit, which will be deemed established upon qualifying under any one of the following: "1.

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.

Figari v. Olcese

184 Cal. 775 · California Supreme Court · Jan 29, 1921

It does not appear clearly whether the elder Olcese signed it at the notary’s office or later. … At any rate, it is enough to say, from plaintiff’s standpoint, that Figari’s testimony, standing uncontradicted, would sufficiently establish Emilio’s liability as a maker of the note, and had the trial court found accordingly

People v. Gurule

123 Cal. Rptr. 2d 345 · California Supreme Court · Jul 22, 2002

Code, § 1220 [to qualify as a party admission, a hearsay statement must be introduced against the declarant].) Defendant was free to present this information by taking the stand himself. … Quinn was not qualified to offer a professional psychological diagnosis, as both the prosecutor and the trial court stated before the jury.

People v. Myers

43 Cal. 3d 250 · California Supreme Court · Jan 2, 1987

Under existing authorities, these errors clearly compel the reversal of the penalty judgment and a remand for a new penalty phase proceeding. I. … left open the possibility that the use of such lists could be subject to challenge if they resulted “ ‘in *268 the systematic exclusion of a “cognizable group or class of qualified citizens” ’ ” (see, e.g., People v.

Van Atta v. Scott

27 Cal. 3d 424 · California Supreme Court · Jul 3, 1980

There was in fact no legally interested defendant committed to establishing the propriety of the present release procedures. … Graff was not qualified as an expert witness on any issue. He cer *457 tainly is not an expert on questions of affluency versus indigency.

Dentzel v. Waldie

30 Cal. 138 · California Supreme Court · Apr 15, 1866

Such statutes have been held valid, when clearly just and reasonable, and conducive to the general welfare, even though they might operate in a degree upon existing rights, as a statute to confirm former marriages defectively … The qualifying phrase, “in the manner heretofore provided,” etc., spends itself on the mode and form of the acknowledgment, and does not attempt to prescribe a rule for the execution of the' instrument.

Big Three Mining & Milling Co. v. Hamilton

157 Cal. 130 · California Supreme Court · Dec 27, 1909

This testimony, if true, established clearly that Graves and not Hamilton was prior in time in the location of the Rosamond, and that he and his successors, if remaining in possession and working the claim until the time … This testimony clearly should not have been admitted.

South Coast Framing, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

61 Cal. 4th 291 · California Supreme Court · May 28, 2015

Bruff as a qualified medical examiner. … Bruff‟s testimony and report in its totality, we conclude the evidence did not establish industrial causation.

Huerta v. CSI Electrical Contractors

California Supreme Court · Mar 25, 2024

In answering yes, we conducted a “strictly textual analysis” of the control clause, which led us to conclude that “Apple employees are clearly under Apple’s control while awaiting, and during, the exit searches.” … We next examine under what circumstances an ostensibly off-duty meal period may qualify as compensable “hours worked.”

People v. Monge

16 Cal. 4th 826 · California Supreme Court · Aug 27, 1997

For example, in Pennsylvania v. *837 Goldhammer (1985) 474 U.S. 28 [ 106 S.Ct. 353 , 88 L.Ed.2d 183 ], the court reaffirmed that its decisions "`clearly establish that a sentenc[ing in a noncapital case ] does not have the … In a passage quoting DiFrancesco, supra, 449 U.S. at page 134 [ 101 S.Ct. at page 436 ], Goldhammer noted: "the decisions of this Court `clearly establish that a sentenc[ing in a noncapital case ] does not have the qualities

Boyer v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.

206 Cal. 273 · California Supreme Court · Jan 26, 1929

It was clearly the intention of the defendant to obtain, and of the applicant to impart, information on the subject of the relationship between the insured and the beneficiary. … The facts, which are extremely simple, were established by stipulation or by undisputed testimony. There was nothing for the trial judge to do as a trier of fact.

People v. Feyrer

48 Cal. 4th 426 · California Supreme Court · Mar 25, 2010

The latter allegation qualified the offense as a violent and serious felony under the “Three Strikes” law. (Pen. Code, §§ 667.5, subd. (c)(8), 1192.7, subd. … In the present case, this consequence was noted specifically by the prosecutor in entering into the plea agreement and clearly was within the contemplation of the parties.