Case law

EAST BAY ASIAN LOCAL DEVEOPMENT v. State

102 Cal. Rptr. 2d 280 · California Supreme Court · Dec 21, 2000

Clearly, therefore, these provisions cannot be justified as an impartial grant of nonreligious assistance. … The majority seeks support for its view that exemptions are inherently immune from advancement challenges in Justice White’s opinion for the court in Corporation of Presiding Bishop, supra, 483 U.S. 327 .

Burlingham v. Gray

22 Cal. 2d 87 · California Supreme Court · Apr 30, 1943

Only within the ambit of practicality thus established by the company lay the “freedom” of the dealer to fix the price he charged his carriers. … Payne (1937), 21 Cal.App.2d 49 [ 68 P.2d 291 ], as establishing that the inclusion of Porter as an “employee” on the blanket insurance policy does not fix his status as such.

In Re Gallego

77 Cal. Rptr. 2d 132 · California Supreme Court · Aug 3, 1998

I Deference to state court procedural bars is based on the "well-established principle of federalism that a state decision resting on an adequate foundation of state substantive law is immune from review in the federal courts … Our state Legislature and this court have also taken steps to qualify California for the special habeas corpus procedures in capital cases ( 28 U.S.C. § 2261 et seq.), which impose additional procedural limitations.

In Re Williams

1 Cal. 3d 168 · California Supreme Court · Nov 14, 1969

California has fulfilled its responsibility to provide counsel for indigents largely by establishing public defender’s offices. … In any event the record clearly states that the attorney did not discuss the defense with his client at all.

Fare v. Scott K.

24 Cal. 3d 395 · California Supreme Court · May 25, 1979

Third Party Consent to Search Our final question is whether the toolbox search was reasonable because the father’s consent qualified under the third-party-consent exception to warrant requirements. … Most often the expectation-of-privacy test has been applied in circumstances where the words of the Constitution are not clearly applicable. (See, e.g., Burrows v.

John R. v. Oakland Unified School District

48 Cal. 3d 438 · California Supreme Court · Mar 30, 1989

We hold that the doctrine is not applicable in these circumstances and that while the school district may be liable if its own direct negligence is established, it cannot be held vicariously liable for its employee’s torts … The extensive control teachers are authorized to exercise over their students *450 supports the analogy to White, supra, 166 Cal.App.3d 566 , and lends some credence to the proposition that a school district should not be immune

Los Angeles Gas & Electric Corp. v. City of Los Angeles

188 Cal. 307 · California Supreme Court · Feb 25, 1922

controlled by the city shall ever be sold, transferred, leased or disposed of to any person or corporation for resale, rental, disposal or distribution to consumers, or other persons, without the assent of two-thirds of the qualified … although it is clear that such an arrangement as is here made could hardly be classed as a partnership, *319 and the mingling of capital is merely incidental to the purchase and sale of a distributing system which the city is clearly

Ray v. Parker

15 Cal. 2d 275 · California Supreme Court · Mar 30, 1940

Its authority to legislate is limited to establishing a reasonable rule. … It clearly appears from the record herein that the proper discharge of the functions confided by the legislature to the discretion of the director, within the standards prescribed by the statute, and particularly the establishment

People v. Williams

44 Cal. 3d 883 · California Supreme Court · Mar 24, 1988

The rule is well established. … The record clearly establishes that the prosecutor had concluded. He asked the jury to consider his comments while defendant’s counsel spoke to them, and told them that he would speak to them again.

People Ex Rel. Dept. of Public Works v. Donovan

57 Cal. 2d 346 · California Supreme Court · Feb 20, 1962

Defendant's objection also goes to the point that the expert was not qualified to define fair market value for the jury, as that is "a legal matter and it is for the court to decide the law in this case. ..." … The questions proposed to be asked of the witness clearly were relevant, material and competent.

Vannier v. Superior Court

32 Cal. 3d 163 · California Supreme Court · Aug 26, 1982

Cavanaugh, supra, 69 Cal.2d 262 , relied upon by petitioner, do not establish that a showing that the evidence will not be cumulative is essential to determination that the witnesses are necessary. … The uniform act is clearly valid when measured by this standard. As the majority recognizes, the act serves a compelling interest. ( Ante, p. 172.)

State Compensation Insurance Fund v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

44 Cal. 4th 230 · California Supreme Court · Jul 3, 2008

After the time for reaching an agreement had expired, the objecting party could select a qualified medical evaluator (QME) to conduct a comprehensive medical evaluation. (Ibid.) … While we typically give great weight to the WCAB’s administrative construction of the statutes it is charged to enforce and interpret, we will annul clearly erroneous interpretations. (Lockheed Martin Corp. v.

Capito v. San Jose Healthcare System, LP

California Supreme Court · Dec 23, 2024

We have said that to create a safe harbor from UCL liability, legislation “must actually ‘bar’ the action or clearly permit the conduct.” (Cel-Tech, supra, 20 Cal.4th at p. 183.) … For largely the same reasons that Capito’s allegations do not establish that Regional had “exclusive knowledge” of the fact that she would be charged an EMS fee, they also do not establish that this fact was not “reasonably

People v. Bruce

64 Cal. 2d 55 · California Supreme Court · Jan 31, 1966

. *58 Defendant appeals from the order of commitment and contends that the evidence is not sufficient to establish his addiction, particularly as that term is defined in the recent eases of this court. … The law clearly contemplates that the medical examiners shall have the benefit of all relevant information to better enable them to make their diagnoses, and, as pointed out, the form of the certificate required of the doctors

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

Davies v. Superior Court

36 Cal. 3d 291 · California Supreme Court · Jul 2, 1984

On the one hand, it is well established that liberality is the rule in civil discovery. (Valley Bank *303 of Nevada v. … A litigant who can make such a showing qualifies as a person with a “proper interest” in the reports under Vehicle Code section 20012.

People v. Zambia

51 Cal. 4th 965 · California Supreme Court · Jun 2, 2011

Trial court and appellate inquiry might be required to tease out just who might qualify as an “active prostitute.” … Such an approach is contrary to established principles of statutory construction.

Simone v. Sabo

37 Cal. 2d 253 · California Supreme Court · May 18, 1951

The failure to use such care can be established only by their testimony." But this rule is subject to the exception clearly set forth in Barham v. … This exception has been similarly stated in many cases and is well established. (Lawless v.

Security Pacific National Bank v. Wozab

51 Cal. 3d 991 · California Supreme Court · Nov 29, 1990

against the debtor’s nonsecured assets, is clearly anomalous. … In fact, the majority go out of their way to qualify even their limited holding regarding the loss of the bank’s security interest in a manner that substantially increases the risk that banks will exercise improper setoffs

Fowles v. National Bank of California

167 Cal. 653 · California Supreme Court · Apr 11, 1914

exercised are not expressed on the face of the instrument, but remain in confidence between the owner and the depositary, the case cannot be distinguished in principle from that of an agent who receives secret instructions qualifying … St. 377, is clearly distinguishable from the case at bar, as is demonstrated in respondent’s brief. The statute is clear and unambiguous, and does not appear to admit of any other construction.