Case law

Calfarm Insurance v. Deukmejian

48 Cal. 3d 805 · California Supreme Court · May 4, 1989

Statutes must be upheld unless their unconstitutionality clearly, positively, and unmistakably appears.” … Section 1861.01, subdivision (b), however, qualifies section 1861.05 by limiting rate adjustments prior to November 1989 to insurers substantially threatened with insolvency.

People ex rel. Lungren v. Superior Court

14 Cal. 4th 294 · California Supreme Court · Dec 9, 1996

By placing the parallel phrases “into water” and “onto or into land” in close juxtaposition, and by qualifying both with the phrase “where such chemical passes or probably will pass into any source of drinking water,” the … As required by Health and Safety Code section 116880, the Department of Health Services has amended the California Plumbing Code to establish a maximum lead content for pipes and pipe fittings used to convey potable water

Paramount Convalescent Center, Inc. v. Department of Health Care Services

15 Cal. 3d 489 · California Supreme Court · Nov 12, 1975

Code, tit. 22, § 51451) and the department "shall" enter into a contract with every qualified nursing home. (§ 51215.) … An arbitrary refusal to contract with a qualified home subverts that legislative design.

People v. Low

49 Cal. 4th 372 · California Supreme Court · Jun 24, 2010

We agree with the lower courts that, under the circumstances of this case, defendant is not statutorily or constitutionally immune from prosecution under section 4573. … Guilt could not be established, the court said, where the intoxicated person “was involuntarily and *385 forcibly carried to that place by the arresting officer.” (Martin, supra, 17 So.2d at p. 427 .)

People v. Superior Court (Lucero)

49 Cal. 3d 14 · California Supreme Court · Jun 29, 1989

The court reasoned, “It is clearly within the power of the City to provide that no motion picture theatre can be operated in a residential area or near a public school. … To preserve the constitutional validity of the ordinance (id. at pp. 158, 162), the Pringle court defined “use” under the ordinance to mean “to practice customarily,” but qualified the phrase to mean “more often than not.

Parsons v. Crown Disposal Co.

15 Cal. 4th 456 · California Supreme Court · May 8, 1997

Crown does not have absolute immunity from liability for accidents involving horseback riders. … Crown has not carried its burden on summary judgment of establishing that there are no triable issues of material fact on these points.

People v. Young

24 Cal. Rptr. 3d 112 · California Supreme Court · Jan 31, 2005

Meloling had argued that Jackson had lied about his experience with guns in spite of being granted immunity, and had been treated like a “saint” by the prosecution. … Disclosure was made promptly under the circumstances, and defendant clearly had adequate time to meaningfully prepare to defend against the evidence. (People v.

American Co. v. City of Lakeport

220 Cal. 548 · California Supreme Court · Apr 23, 1934

“The foregoing decisions, in our opinion, have established the validity of the bonds as against this ground of attack. … Such an interpretation, moreover, avoids the cardinal error of imposing a tax by inference from language which does not clearly authorize it.

People v. Roldan

27 Cal. Rptr. 3d 360 · California Supreme Court · Apr 25, 2005

This evidence was clearly relevant for that purpose and therefore properly admitted. c. … That information does not establish that defendant also was drinking.

Sierra Club v. City of Hayward

28 Cal. 3d 840 · California Supreme Court · Feb 9, 1981

Firmly established precedent, however, compels a different conclusion. … The Legislature’s findings clearly spell out its intent, and nowhere among them appears a motivation to subsidize those who would subdivide.

City of Los Angeles v. Pricewaterhousecoopers, LLP

California Supreme Court · Aug 22, 2024

Several weeks after Clark’s deposition, the City provided an errata sheet that attempted to qualify several of his most significant admissions. … It is undisputed that the misconduct the trial court found in this case qualifies as discovery misuse within the meaning of section 2023.010.

People v. Smith

17 Cal. 3d 845 · California Supreme Court · Aug 31, 1976

dissent in Scoma ( id., at p. 340) been the prevailing law of California the police officer would have been alerted to the need in his affidavit of identifying the informer as a juvenile and pursuant to law the boy would have qualified … In holding Miss Simmons to be a citizen informant, the Court of Appeal recited the test adopted by the majority and then applied it, stating: "In the instant case Miss Simmons was clearly a witness to a crime.

Sills v. Los Angeles Transit Lines

40 Cal. 2d 630 · California Supreme Court · Apr 9, 1953

Viewing the evidence in the light “most favorable to the contention that the [last clear chance] doctrine is applicable . . . since plaintiff is entitled to an instruction thereon if the evidence so viewed could establish … However, plaintiff was clearly only hazarding a guess as to the duration of his stop, and other testimony indicated a considerably shorter time interval.

Estate of Kay

30 Cal. 2d 215 · California Supreme Court · Jun 2, 1947

The other medical witness was also of the opinion that petioner was sane and competent but his opinion was qualified: "Q. And what is your opinion___ A. … Evidence was introduced which, without any substantial dispute, established that Dr.

People v. Watson

76 Cal. Rptr. 3d 208 · California Supreme Court · May 8, 2008

The probative value of the photographs thus is not clearly outweighed by their prejudicial effect. … (a)), Sickler was not qualified to offer such testimony.

Adams v. Prather

176 Cal. 33 · California Supreme Court · Aug 31, 1917

Adams, the brother of his deceased wife, named therein as executor, qualified as executor and, under and by virtue of sections 1589 to 1591, inclusive, Code of Civil Procedure, brought this action to obtain a decree declaring … This'is clearly the intention of the testator when effect is given to the whole will, and the intention should ' always govern.” The intention of Julia P. A.

Beyerbach v. Juno Oil Co.

42 Cal. 2d 11 · California Supreme Court · Jan 5, 1954

IV, § 25) and against special privileges and immunities (art. I, §21). Fundamentally, plaintiff’s arguments as to .constitutionality are answered, either directly or by necessary implication, by Cohen v. … denies it to the other, and allows such fee in one kind of action and not in other kinds of actions where, as in the statute here in question, the distinction is not founded on constitutional or natural differences, is clearly

Alarid v. Vanier

50 Cal. 2d 617 · California Supreme Court · Jul 17, 1958

This ease clearly falls within tests (1) and (3) above stated. … (b) How qualified were the personnel to judge the condition of the whole brake system ? (c) Did defendant inspect the brakes when he bought the used car? Were his later inspections frequent and thorough enough ?

People v. Hamilton

60 Cal. 2d 105 · California Supreme Court · Jul 9, 1963

Vanderburg (1960) 184 Cal.App.2d 33, 40 [ 7 Cal.Rptr. 287 ]), this was clearly error, but the trial court overruled the objection thereto. … it is highly improper for the prosecution to pursue a line of interrogation which, by direction or indirection, has as its only purpose the implanting of damaging facts against the defendant which cannot be legitimately established

Ector v. City of Torrance

10 Cal. 3d 129 · California Supreme Court · Oct 2, 1973

Clearly the cultural and educational rewards of international travel (Kent v. … invalidated not a residence requirement as such but a durational residence requirement, i.e., a requirement that the migrant not only be a resident but maintain that status for a certain minimum period of time before he qualifies