Case law

People v. Ramos

15 Cal. 4th 1133 · California Supreme Court · Jul 7, 1997

The first element of the test is clearly satisfied. … In any event, it clearly did not systematically exclude Hispanics. (Ibid.)

Scott v. Times-Mirror Co.

181 Cal. 345 · California Supreme Court · Oct 8, 1919

But whatever those authorities may decide, or their underlying reasoning may be, they are clearly not binding as authorities in this jurisdiction. … George. ’ ’ This evidence was offered for the purpose of 11 establishing the motives of the attorney filing the complaint.”

State ex rel. Department of Transportation v. Superior Court

37 Cal. 3d 847 · California Supreme Court · Jan 31, 1985

It clearly contemplates that persons other than those involved in the reported accident may have a “proper interest” in the reports. … Hall may later establish a proper interest in the identifying data.

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.

In Re Hardy

63 Cal. Rptr. 3d 845 · California Supreme Court · Jul 26, 2007

She testified at trial under a grant of immunity, but admitted that even after receiving immunity and consulting an attorney, she contacted petitioner in jail intending to assist him. … It thus seems unlikely this evidence would qualify as “newly discovered.”

Anaheim Sugar Co. v. County of Orange

181 Cal. 212 · California Supreme Court · Sep 3, 1919

In the absence of other words qualifying their meaning, the words “east” and “west,” as used in the petition, must be construed as meaning due east and due west. (Bosworth v. Danzien, 25 Cal. 296; Pratt v. … Clearly, then, the complaint alleges facts which show that the board of supervisors was without jurisdiction to consider the petition at the date originally set for the hearing.

People v. Boggess

194 Cal. 212 · California Supreme Court · Jul 30, 1924

It was not necessary, in order to render this witness’ testimony admissible, that he should qualify as an expert in the strict sense of the term. … Clearly, the ruling and the reason for the ruling were wrong.

Morales v. State Bar

44 Cal. 3d 1037 · California Supreme Court · Mar 31, 1988

About a year later, on October 31, 1974, the firm established a pension plan approved by the Internal Revenue Service as an ERISA 1 plan. … Trial de Novo Likewise without merit is petitioner’s contention that a trial de novo should have been granted on his offer to establish evidence in his *1047 defense.

Kentucky Fried Chicken of California, Inc. v. Superior Court

14 Cal. 4th 814 · California Supreme Court · Jan 6, 1997

The only persons who will clearly benefit from the imposition of such a duty are the criminals. … They conclude, underneath their words, that a business proprietor is immune as a matter of law insofar as his customers find themselves in the presence of a robber.

Winchester v. Howard

136 Cal. 432 · California Supreme Court · May 28, 1902

We must submit to this policy established in the fundamental law, and therefore every constitutional mandate which can be put in force without legislation must be held to be self-executing, unless a contrary intent is shown … The allegations of the complaint in this case clearly bring it within the rule there laid down.

In Re Plotner

5 Cal. 3d 714 · California Supreme Court · Sep 14, 1971

This offense alone clearly warrants disbarment. (See In re Lyons (1964) Bar Misc. 2312.) … Clearly, they had fully explored these defenses. As stated by this court in Grove v.

In Re City and County of San Francisco

195 Cal. 426 · California Supreme Court · Feb 21, 1925

Calling it a lease did not establish the fact. This is peculiarly a case where there is nothing in a name, for the contents of the paper disclose its true character. It is said in Heryford v. Davis, 102 U. … It also quite clearly appears that the so-called option on the part of the municipality to purchase the said property becomes in effect an increasing compulsion upon it to consummate such purchase, since not to do so would

Dougherty v. California Kettleman Oil Royalties, Inc.

9 Cal. 2d 58 · California Supreme Court · May 27, 1937

There can be no doubt, and the record clearly establishes, that Ochsner, until as late as March of 1923, clearly recognized the existence of Dougherty’s claim, the extent of it, considered the obligation binding upon him, … These cases, and many others that could be cited, clearly establish that under the circumstances here pertaining the granting of leave to amend rested in the sound discretion of the trial court, and that the amended complaint

Hensler v. City of Glendale

8 Cal. 4th 1 · California Supreme Court · Jul 25, 1994

It would clearly be an action to determine the validity of the permit conditions. 15 A plaintiff may not avoid the application of section 66499.37 by electing to *26 forego raising his claim in the administrative mandamus … We held that the plaintiff could not add a tort claim for damage predicated on acts for which the Government Code provides immunity, as for injury caused by adopting or failing to adopt an enactment. (See Gov.

People v. Daniels

71 Cal. 2d 1119 · California Supreme Court · Oct 2, 1969

The lights were turned on again, and she could see him clearly. … Nevertheless, the court continued the case until the following Monday in the event Simmons' father brought a qualified attorney.

Fraenkel v. Trescony

48 Cal. 2d 378 · California Supreme Court · Apr 19, 1957

Consistent with this interpretation of the statutory language, the trial court's judgment, based upon its determination that the construction in question did not qualify under the farming exemption, must be affirmed. … However, the merits of plaintiff's argument on this point need not be here decided, for the record clearly supports the finding that the grain elevator was not "located on a farm" as required for application of the exemption

People v. Haskett

30 Cal. 3d 841 · California Supreme Court · Feb 18, 1982

A motive for killing the boys was also clearly demonstrated. … “Admission of photos of victims lies within the discretion of the trial court unless their probative value is clearly outweighed by their prejudicial effect.” (People v.

Northrop Aircraft, Inc. v. California Employment Stabilization Commission

32 Cal. 2d 872 · California Supreme Court · Nov 1, 1948

For our purposes the computation date is June 30th for the purpose of establishing the contribution rate for the next succeeding calendar year (§ 42(a) (4)) and the rating period is the full calendar year next succeeding … But Northrop paid the tax and is suing for a refund; the state is not raising the statute of limitations as a bar to a recovery, for the suit is clearly brought in time.

People v. Gonzales

216 Cal. Rptr. 3d 285 · California Supreme Court · Mar 23, 2017

The drafters of the Act clearly had burglary in mind when defining “shoplifting.” … Thus, defendant would qualify for relief if he can show that his conduct would have constituted misdemeanor shoplifting, so long as he has not suffered a disqualifying conviction.13 (See §§ 459.5, subd.

Avco Community Developers, Inc. v. South Coast Regional Commission

17 Cal. 3d 785 · California Supreme Court · Aug 25, 1976

In such situations, the result would be that these lots, as well as others in similar subdivisions created more recently or lots established in future subdivisions, would be impressed with an exemption of indeterminate duration … Clearly, however, See The Sea did not hold that a building permit was not required for an exemption under the Act.