Case law

Morrow v. Superior Court

2 Cal. Unrep. 124 · California Supreme Court · Jan 20, 1882

The primary liability of the stockholders of every corporation, thus specifically and clearly declared, may, of course, be enforced by an action at law, and legislation which should attempt to limit the liability, or to postpone … The present constitution of California is a substitute for that adopted in 1849, as amended in 1863, and our present state government a continuance of that established when the constitution of 1849 was adopted.

Wasatch Property Management v. Degrate

29 Cal. Rptr. 3d 262 · California Supreme Court · Jul 27, 2005

(a) [“Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an owner of residential real property may establish the initial and all subsequent rental rates for a dwelling or a unit . . . .”].) … The statute clearly applies if the owner directly terminates the HAP contract with the government.

Rubio v. Superior Court

24 Cal. 3d 93 · California Supreme Court · Apr 24, 1979

Two requirements must thus be met in order to qualify an asserted group as "cognizable" for purposes of the representative cross-section rule. … In view of the irrational fit between the avowed objective and classification of the statute and the countervailing policy and constitutional considerations, the exclusion is clearly irrational.

Rainey v. Michel

6 Cal. 2d 259 · California Supreme Court · Apr 30, 1936

article I, providing that no person shall “be deprived of his life, liberty or property without due process of law”; and section 21 of article I, providing that no citizen or class of citizens shall “be granted privileges or immunities … R. 774, establish that fact.

People v. Sims

32 Cal. 3d 468 · California Supreme Court · Sep 27, 1982

However, the record clearly shows that the trial court did not dismiss the information against respondent under Penal Code section 1385. … Even assuming that the state has a separate and independent right to a jury trial, such a right is clearly not absolute.

Arp v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

19 Cal. 3d 395 · California Supreme Court · May 5, 1977

Section 3502 (with exceptions not relevant here) requires that all other persons, including widowers such as petitioner, establish their entitlement to death benefits by proving the fact and extent of their dependency upon … federal statute which had provided an automatic dependents’ allowance to married male members of the uniformed services, but required married females to demonstrate the actual financial dependence of their spouses in order to qualify

People v. Osaki

209 Cal. 169 · California Supreme Court · Mar 26, 1930

If this were universally true, then, under the game .laws, the proof of not being qualified ought to be shown by the plaintiff, for the charge is clearly of a criminal nature. … The decision expressly states that the fact as to whether the defendant had funds in the bank was as clearly and fully within the knowledge of the bank officials as it was within the knowledge of the defendant.

Stickel v. San Diego Electric Railway Co.

32 Cal. 2d 157 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1948

It does not, as defendants urge, establish as a matter of law that Mrs. … They argue that the instruction might be misunderstood to impose the absolute duty “to avoid a collision”; that the jury might believe that the qualifying words, “to exercise ordinary care,” relate only to the duty “to avoid

Potter v. Chambers

188 Cal. 55 · California Supreme Court · Feb 2, 1922

(Ibid., 450.) [9] It is also an established rule that a statute is not to be construed so as to have a retroactive effect unless the intent that it is to be retroactive clearly appears from the statute itself. … Such meaning, if intended by the legislature, should be clearly expressed in the statute.

People v. Otto

109 Cal. Rptr. 2d 327 · California Supreme Court · Jul 23, 2001

At the time of the amendment, Evidence Code section 1201 already provided for admission of hearsay falling within an established exception. … Here, unlike Reed , the hearsay statements at issue fall within an express statutory exception similar to the prison records discussed in Reed , and the declarants are clearly identified. 2.

People v. Sandoval

65 Cal. 2d 303 · California Supreme Court · Oct 27, 1966

App.2d 506 [ 5 Cal.Rptr. 451 ]) relied upon the statements of untested informers not only to furnish the identification of the supposed culprit but also to establish the fact that a crime had been committed. … To hold that an officer’s reasonable error as to where a felony has been committed renders the felon immune to arrest under section 836 of the Penal Code would be particularly anomalous in light of that section’s express

People v. Morris

46 Cal. 3d 1 · California Supreme Court · Jul 21, 1988

We would, in effect, have created a statutory immunity from capital punishment available exclusively to those who commit special circumstance felony murders and subsequently manage to avoid prosecution for the requisite number … The People’s argument clearly misses the point.

Barrington v. A. H. Robins Co.

39 Cal. 3d 146 · California Supreme Court · Jul 29, 1985

Taras and Darvon Manufacturer are immune from suit under section 581a. As a consequence, if the dismissal is affirmed, petitioner will be left without a remedy. … Superior Court, supra, 28 Cal.3d 714 established a judicial policy that noncompliance with section 581a should not be excused unless plaintiff can show reasonable diligence.

Winterburn v. Chambers

91 Cal. 170 · California Supreme Court · Sep 14, 1891

These acts were sufficient to clearly indicate the intent on his part to claim the entire estate as his own to the exclusion of all other persons, and were also acts of such character and performed with sufficient publicity … He did not enter into possession of any portion of the land under the subsequent conveyances, and his original entry can neither be qualified nor his title impaired by such purchase.

Consulting Engineers & Land Surveyors of California, Inc. v. Professional Engineers in California Government

42 Cal. 4th 578 · California Supreme Court · Nov 5, 2007

Section 1 provides in relevant part that the “State of California and all other governmental entities . . . shall be allowed to contract with qualified private entities for architectural and engineering services for all public … The plain language of article 24—allowing as it does for termination of private contracts and clearly serving to protect the interests of state employees—belies this interpretation.

Donahoo v. Kress House Moving Corp.

25 Cal. 2d 237 · California Supreme Court · Nov 21, 1944

The evidence does not disclose who laid the small boards in position but it appears clearly that Juanita Donahoo and a Miss Young, who was a close friend of her mother, frequently used the path formed by these boards. … I perceive no established or just basis in law for answers to those questions which will support the majority holding.

People v. Lara

54 Cal. 4th 896 · California Supreme Court · Jul 19, 2012

(c)(1)(18)) that would otherwise have qualified him for sentencing under the Three Strikes law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)), 1170.12) and a five-year enhancement (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)). … Indeed, to attribute to the Legislature the unexpressed intent to create such a requirement would seem inconsistent with another, clearly expressed aspect of legislative intent.

People v. McCovey

36 Cal. 3d 517 · California Supreme Court · Jul 26, 1984

The Klamath River Reservation was established by executive order two years later. (Ibid.) … The statute granting states criminal jurisdiction over Indian offenses provides, however, that states are not authorized to “deprive any Indian or any Indian tribe, band, or community of any right, privilege, or immunity

Waits v. Swoap

11 Cal. 3d 887 · California Supreme Court · Jul 2, 1974

Legislature, and to the taxpayers of this state, that by reason of the majority’s holding herein, a full welfare grant must be paid to relatives caring for a dependent child, despite the fact that these persons do not themselves qualify … Section 11006 clearly provides that the grant is not intended to benefit any person outside the recipient group and therefore restricts the nonneedy relative to reimbursement for his out-of-pocket costs.

Kopp v. Fair Political Practices Commission

11 Cal. 4th 607 · California Supreme Court · Nov 30, 1995

establish a maximum dollar amount for particular contributions. … Russell, supra, 271 S.E.2d 178 , concerned a workers’ compensation statute that established a conclusive presumption of a surviving spouse’s dependency on a deceased spouse, but set out different tests for establishing that