Case law

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

In Re De La Roi

27 Cal. 2d 354 · California Supreme Court · Dec 11, 1945

Secretary to the Warden of Folsom State Prison, by means of promises of special privileges and immunities to said James Allen and Stanley Robinson; that said testimony was known by Stephen B. … Under these circumstances, the record clearly shows that the petitioner has not established by that preponderance of substantial, credible evidence which the law requires, the charges upon which the writ of habeas corpus

Lindros v. Governing Board of the Torrance Unified School District

9 Cal. 3d 524 · California Supreme Court · May 31, 1973

determination of the governing board as to the sufficiency of the cause pursuant to this section shall be conclusive, but the *533 cause shall relate solely to the welfare of the schools and the pupils thereof The precedents clearly … These cases illustrate both the use of such speech in sections of our multifarious society and an increasing immunity from criminal sanction for such expressions.

People v. Peevy

17 Cal. 4th 1184 · California Supreme Court · May 7, 1998

To be sure, the court has somewhat qualified the rule of evidence that it declared in Miranda . For example, in Harris v. … It is plain, however, that the court has not qualified the rule of evidence that it declared in Miranda , as it were, unqualifiedly.

Rappleyea v. Campbell

8 Cal. 4th 975 · California Supreme Court · Dec 1, 1994

I find no explanation in the majority opinion for this failure to acknowledge or apply well-established law. … If the reviewing court were free to reject the inferences presumably drawn by the trial court, it would not be deciding if the trial court clearly abused its discretion in denying relief.

People v. Carter

48 Cal. 2d 737 · California Supreme Court · Jun 21, 1957

Evidence that he had made the experiments was introduced to qualify him as an expert in blood dynamics, to show that by training and experience he was able from an analysis of the size and shape of blood spots to determine … A defendant’s reiterated denial of guilt and the principal facts that purportedly establish it does not justify the prosecution’s introduction of new evidence to establish that which defendant would clearly have denied from

Dare v. Board of Medical Examiners

21 Cal. 2d 790 · California Supreme Court · Apr 7, 1943

That authority, however, is for the establishment of local “courts,” not local administrative boards. … This doctrine was clearly explained by Chief Justice Hughes in Crowell v. Benson, 285 U.S. 22 [ 52 S.Ct. 285 , 76 L.Ed. 598 ].

Petersen v. Hartell

40 Cal. 3d 102 · California Supreme Court · Oct 21, 1985

This assurance was clearly not essential to the holding. As in this case, the vendee had deposited with the court the full balance of the purchase price with interest. (Id., at p. 812.) … As the authors of a leading treatise in the field have commented, “[t]he entire question of the vendor-vendee relationship would be better served if the courts would, once and for all, clearly establish that the security

People v. Trevino

39 Cal. 3d 667 · California Supreme Court · Aug 29, 1985

As we have seen, the trial court clearly did not believe the first *699 reason, nor is it supported by the evidence. As the second reason is necessarily tied to the first, it too must fall. … In Wheeler we discussed the purposes of peremptory challenges and challenges for cause (§ 1071) and concluded that both were designed to permit the elimination of qualified jurors for “specific bias.”

Reilly v. Marin Housing Authority

California Supreme Court · Aug 31, 2020

This background clearly informs the interpretation of 24 Code of Federal Regulations part 5.609(c)(16) (2020). … Congress established Section 8 with “the purpose of aiding low-income families in obtaining a decent place to live.” (42 U.S.C § 1437f(a).)

Ferrante v. Fish & Game Commission

29 Cal. 2d 365 · California Supreme Court · Dec 6, 1946

He may be supposed to have established business connections, customers, a staff of employees and operatives for his plant and possibly contract commitments for the coming year. … He clearly stands in a different position from the newcomer to the field.

People v. Dain

California Supreme Court · Aug 4, 2025

The trial court found that the 2006 conviction qualified as a strike, and Dain filed a new Romero motion once again seeking to dismiss the strike. (Id. at p. 408.) … (Id. at p. 164, fn. 7.)3 The approach we took in Williams accords with established principles governing the review of discretionary sentencing decisions.

People v. Shirley

31 Cal. 3d 18 · California Supreme Court · Mar 11, 1982

To be sure, in Kelly we doubted whether the testimony of a single witness, even if qualified, is sufficient to establish the views of an entire scientific community as to the reliability of a new procedure. ( 17 Cal. 3d at … State (1974) 232 Ga. 110 [ 205 S.E.2d 231, 235 ] (“the reliability of hypnosis has not been established”); State v.

People v. Cottone

57 Cal. 4th 269 · California Supreme Court · Jul 22, 2013

Defendant‘s identity as the person who committed an uncharged act is a classic example of a preliminary fact necessary to establish relevance. … The court may find an expert qualified to give an opinion, and that the opinion is founded on sound logic and reliable theory or technique.

Amador v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board

35 Cal. 3d 671 · California Supreme Court · Mar 26, 1984

However, “where the probative facts are not in dispute, and those facts clearly require a conclusion different from that reached by the trial court, ... the latter’s conclusions may be disregarded.” … Kuhn refused, “based on his belief that he was not qualified to be a motor vehicle inspector and that he did not want to accept the responsibility or liability for certifying motor vehicles safe for highway operation. ” (

People v. Walker

47 Cal. 3d 605 · California Supreme Court · Dec 27, 1988

The execution-style shooting clearly evinces an intent to kill. … He suggested the threats evidenced a callous and casual attitude toward the value of others’ lives, but clearly communicated his belief that this attitude was established primarily by defendant’s conduct in the charged offenses

Camacho v. Superior Court

California Supreme Court · Aug 31, 2023

Camacho therefore has not established that the pretrial delay in this case resulted in a violation of his due process rights. … More fundamentally, SVP trials are unlike criminal trials in that they are not aimed primarily at establishing an individual’s liability for past events, but instead at establishing the individual’s present need for mental

Socialist Party v. Uhl.

155 Cal. 776 · California Supreme Court · Jun 28, 1909

These nomination papers must be signed and verified by qualified electors, and must contain, among other things, a statement of the political party with which such qualified electors affiliate, and a further declaration on … This clearly the state may lawfully do.” (State v. Nichols, 50 Wash. 508 , [ 97 Pac. 728, 730 ].)

Harrington v. Taylor

176 Cal. 802 · California Supreme Court · Dec 18, 1917

Clearly, no such duty is imposed upon the trustees by the terms of the trust. … As a judge, Harrison was thoroughly well qualified, innately and learnedly. His sense of justice was acute, and his education wide and deep.

People v. Gonzalez

51 Cal. 3d 1179 · California Supreme Court · Dec 3, 1990

Code, § 43.5(a)) immunizes a peace officer from liability for nonnegligent execution of an arrest warrant regular on its face, regardless of any underlying deficiency. 18 Cases consistently explain that this statutory immunity … While they might thus have presented more difficult questions for the guilt and penalty juries, they do not qualify as “new evidence” that fundamentally undermines the judgment.