Case law

Butler v. Nepple

54 Cal. 2d 589 · California Supreme Court · Aug 10, 1960

On its face paragraph 3 of the assignment to defendant Nepple is clearly of the “drill or pay” type. … It is true that under the authorities, work preparatory to drilling may be sufficient to constitute the commencement of drilling, but this rule is qualified by the requirement that such preliminary work must be something

In Re Jackson

3 Cal. 4th 578 · California Supreme Court · Aug 31, 1992

With regard to the judgment as to defendant’s guilt of two counts of first degree murder and two counts of burglary, reversal clearly is not required. … In addition, the testimony of defendant’s neighbors and acquaintances, recounting the numerous statements that defendant made to them shortly after the crimes, clearly established that defendant had the requisite culpability

City of Oakland v. Oakland Water Front Co.

118 Cal. 160 · California Supreme Court · Sep 13, 1897

stated my opinion that it was nugatory; and as to the extension of the boundaries *Page 173 of Oakland effected by the amendment — if such was its effect — it may be remarked that its excessive liberality was materially qualified … *Page 187 This act of incorporation was approved May 4, 1853, and the town was immediately organized there under, Carpentier being elected one of the trustees, but failing to qualify.

People v. Towne

44 Cal. 4th 63 · California Supreme Court · Jun 26, 2008

does not qualify as an aggravating circumstance. … The trial court’s statement that it was relying on defendant’s “extensive criminal history” does not clearly express whether the court intended to refer only to his prior convictions or also to include the other three factors

People v. Durham

70 Cal. 2d 171 · California Supreme Court · Jan 21, 1969

We consider that the principles set forth in Kauffman, which was decided 12 years earlier, are presently qualified by the rule of “substantial” evidence. … Smith (1966) 63 Cal.2d 779 [ 48 Cal.Rptr. 382 , 409 P.2d 222 ], is clearly distinguishable.

People v. Adcox

47 Cal. 3d 207 · California Supreme Court · Nov 17, 1988

The record establishes that Tillery agreed to testify truthfully for the People “at all hearings and/or trials” in defendant’s prosecution, in exchange for immunity from prosecution for the murder and acceptance of her guilty … Nothing in Tillery’s plea bargain resembles the evils inherent in the immunity agreements condemned in those cases.

People v. Gutierrez

218 Cal. Rptr. 3d 289 · California Supreme Court · Jun 1, 2017

The court did not determine whether defendants established a prima facie case based on gender discrimination. (See People v. … This is important, Your Honor, Gabriel Trevino is going to testify under the immunity agreement in this case.

The People v. Jones

57 Cal. 4th 899 · California Supreme Court · Aug 26, 2013

[N]ot all who oppose the death penalty are subject to removal for cause in capital cases; those who firmly believe that the death penalty is unjust may nevertheless serve as jurors in capital cases so long as they state clearly … This claim fails because no evidence establishes such agency.

Board of Trustees v. Reynolds

49 Cal. 2d 120 · California Supreme Court · Sep 20, 1957

She might have been clearly identified as the holder of a vested remainder by the use of the term ‘children’ without other language, but was not. What could the grantor have had in mind? … Stanford University has not established that the adoption was void and it must be presumed to have been valid. (Estate of Smith, supra, 86 Cal.App.2d 456 .)

Showalter v. Western Pacific Railroad

16 Cal. 2d 460 · California Supreme Court · Nov 4, 1940

The hind or amount of evidence required to establish it is not subject to the control of the several states”. (Italics ours.) … The rule which they have applied is perhaps expressed most clearly in Williams v. S. P.

People v. Richards

17 Cal. 3d 614 · California Supreme Court · Jul 30, 1976

I agree with the majority insofar as they reiterate the following well-established principles: Trial courts have broad discretion in creating conditions to probation. … “I concur in the judgment, but would qualify the statement that acquittal of the theft of the $1,278 ‘[ojrdinarily . . . would preclude inclusion of that item in the restitution order.’ (Ante, p. 487.)

Laurel Heights Improvement Ass'n of San Francisco, Inc. v. Regents of University of California

47 Cal. 3d 376 · California Supreme Court · Dec 1, 1988

All of the fume hoods would be monitored as per standards established by [law]. . . . … A clearly inadequate or unsupported study is entitled to no judicial deference.

Cleaver v. Superior Court

24 Cal. 3d 297 · California Supreme Court · May 23, 1979

To be sure, the People established there was a large amount of water on the premises. … All were qualified to act as magistrates (Pen. Code, § 808) and to issue search warrants (id., § 1523 et seq.).

Wilson v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority

96 Cal. Rptr. 2d 747 · California Supreme Court · Jun 12, 2000

It concluded damages were an inadequate remedy because the district was immune from tort liability. … (b)-(d) [Legislature’s intent in enacting Public Contract Code includes “ensuring] full compliance with competitive bidding statutes as a means of protecting the public from misuse of public funds,” “provid[ing] all qualified

San Joaquin & Kings River Canal & Irrigation Co. v. Stevinson

164 Cal. 221 · California Supreme Court · Nov 20, 1912

This particular clause was intended to encourage and assist those proposing to establish systems of waterworks for the supplying of the public. … While there is a general allegation to this effect, as before stated, the specific facts alleged show clearly *232 enough that the water is to be taken only to the lands on the west side.

People v. Shabazz

40 Cal. Rptr. 3d 750 · California Supreme Court · Mar 27, 2006

Darrell Miller, who testified under a grant of immunity and in exchange for a reduction of his prison sentence in connection with several other unrelated felonies, was a member of the Geer Street Crips gang. … That rule clearly is inapplicable in the present circumstances. (See, e.g., People v. Avery (2002) 27 Cal.4th 49, 57-58 [ 115 Cal.Rptr.2d 403 , 38 P.3d 1 ].)

Goldie v. Bauchet Properties

15 Cal. 3d 307 · California Supreme Court · Sep 26, 1975

Section 9-313 of that code establishes the rules for determining the priority of security interests in fixtures. … Defendants’ answer clearly tendered the issue of ownership and right to possession of the machine.

People v. Jones

5 Cal. 4th 1142 · California Supreme Court · Sep 13, 1993

To the contrary, the sections clearly state that both enhancements "shall" be imposed. … Clearly not.

Anderson v. Souza

38 Cal. 2d 825 · California Supreme Court · Apr 24, 1952

While it is better, of course, to properly and fully qualify the witness who is to testify from or with the aid of memoranda, nevertheless we do not think that what happened here would justify reversal if, indeed, error at … The testimony of the Harlans and Andersons, which is set out in detail below, is clearly sufficient to support the awards in their favor. (See Judson v.

People v. Williams

48 Cal. 3d 1112 · California Supreme Court · Jun 22, 1989

The rules for establishing chain of custody were set forth in the seminal case of People v. … In considering whether a person qualifies as an expert, the field of expertise must be carefully distinguished and limited.’ ” (People v.