Case law

Bellizzi v. Superior Court

12 Cal. 3d 33 · California Supreme Court · Jul 11, 1974

It is well established that the 60-day statutory period within which defendant must be brought to trial (Pen. Code, § 1382, subd. 2), begins anew with the filing of the new indictment. ( People v. … Petitioner has clearly shown prejudice. It is undisputed that Evans is a material witness.

Dean v. Kuchel

35 Cal. 2d 444 · California Supreme Court · May 18, 1950

Here it is clearly stated that the rentals are for that purpose. … We are satisfied therefore that the instant transaction qualifies as a lease for the purpose of the debt limitation.

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

Renee J. v. Superior Court

110 Cal. Rptr. 2d 828 · California Supreme Court · Aug 16, 2001

We are directed to no legislative history expressly answering the question before us and, as a matter of English usage, nothing in section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10) clearly compels one reading over the other. … Another provides that when the sense of the entire act requires that a qualifying word or phrase apply to several preceding words, its application will not be restricted to the last. (White v.

People v. Jones

51 Cal. 3d 294 · California Supreme Court · Jun 28, 1990

Nothing more is required to establish the substantiality of the victim’s testimony in child molestation cases. 2. … “Beyond that, . . . the prosecution clearly has no duty to provide more explicit notice than human nature and science permit.” (Id., at p. 868.)

People v. Cross

45 Cal. 4th 58 · California Supreme Court · Aug 28, 2008

Le (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 54, 59-60 [ 39 Cal.Rptr.3d 741 ] [soft-tissue gunshot wound that prevented the victim from walking unaided for seven weeks qualified as great bodily injury under § 12022.53, subd. (d)].) … The Court of Appeal’s holding in Sargent was confined to the circumstances presented: “We merely find that the facts in this case, i.e., a pregnancy followed by an abortion, clearly support a finding of great bodily injury

County of Santa Clara v. Deputy Sheriffs' Ass'n of Santa Clara County, Inc.

3 Cal. 4th 873 · California Supreme Court · Nov 2, 1992

According to a declaration filed by the director, the custodial officers were qualified in the use of firearms under the same standards as those used by the sheriff’s department, and in fact exceeded those standards, and … The questions whether government employees may act as peace officers and whether they may carry firearms in the performance of their law enforcement functions are clearly matters of statewide concern.

Welfare Rights Organization v. Crisan

33 Cal. 3d 766 · California Supreme Court · Apr 28, 1983

Thus, in applying the rule of necessary implication in this case, we merely follow well-established tradition. … There is no evidence that the lay representative here would so qualify.

People v. Williams

44 Cal. 3d 1127 · California Supreme Court · Apr 11, 1988

Alfred Coward, known as “Blackie,” testified as an immunized witness and gave the following account of Owens’s death: Approximately 10:30 p.m. on February 27, 1979, defendant came to Coward’s house. … Samuel Coleman, testifying as an immunized witness, said that on March 10 he and defendant went to the Showcase Bar where he remained until it closed around 6 a.m.

Diamond v. Bland

3 Cal. 3d 653 · California Supreme Court · Dec 16, 1970

In addition, plaintiffs have filed a new petition with the Secretary of State and have announced resumption of a campaign to qualify an initiative measure for the next state election. … The shopping center here is clearly the functional equivalent of the business district of Chickasaw involved in Marsh .

Yanowitz v. L'OREAL USA, INC.

32 Cal. Rptr. 3d 436 · California Supreme Court · Aug 11, 2005

Standing alone, an employee’s unarticulated belief that an employer is engaging in discrimination will not suffice to establish protected conduct for the purposes of establishing a prima facie case of retaliation, where there … Such evidence clearly would have been relevant to the question at issue.

People v. Cortez

63 Cal. 4th 101 · California Supreme Court · May 9, 2016

As to hearsay statements that qualify under the party admissions exception to the hearsay rule (Evid. … under any hearsay excephon and that was ‘“clearly inadmissible against [the defendant] under traditional rules of evidence.”

LeVesque v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board

1 Cal. 3d 627 · California Supreme Court · Jan 22, 1970

The referee’s report clearly indicates the basis of his decision. … Having established all these facts, the referee illogically concluded that petitioner did not qualify for temporary disability compensation.

American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations v. Eu

36 Cal. 3d 687 · California Supreme Court · Aug 27, 1984

Instead, we must first satisfy ourselves that the initiative is clearly invalid, i.e., clearly beyond the people's power to adopt. No such showing is made here. … If so, then in what respects does the initiative measure before us fail to qualify as proposing such a law?

In Re Marriage of Elfmont

9 Cal. 4th 1026 · California Supreme Court · Apr 10, 1995

one significant element of these community assets—the contractual right of renewal contained in each of the then existing disability policies 1 —and thereafter continued to renew the policies until he became disabled and qualified … In the present case, which involves “privately owned” individual insurance policies (rather than an employment-related group policy), the right of renewal contained in each of the insurance policies clearly constituted a

People v. Lucero

44 Cal. 3d 1006 · California Supreme Court · Mar 28, 1988

He was unable to think clearly, to perceive reality or to react appropriately to that reality. … That case, however, was not concerned with establishing a test of prejudicial error, but with defining incompetency of counsel.

Bernstein v. Committee of Bar Examiners

69 Cal. 2d 90 · California Supreme Court · Aug 8, 1968

The foregoing evidence establishes a prima facie case of Bernstein’s good moral character. Respondent, however, points to the following matters to rebut that showing: 1. … Judged by these standards the finding that Bernstein intended to defraud his former wife is clearly supported by the weight of the evidence.

People v. Sims

5 Cal. 4th 405 · California Supreme Court · Jun 28, 1993

Mandujano “appeared quite young to the court.” *431 Moreover, the transcript of the death-qualifying voir dire of Ms. Vasconcellos, Mr. Estevez, and Ms. … The transcript clearly establishes, however, that at no point prior to engaging in further conversation with the Glendale officers did defendant indicate a desire to obtain counsel.

In re the Bonds of the Madera Irrigation District

92 Cal. 296 · California Supreme Court · Dec 14, 1891

, or by *309 establishing local jurisdictions for that express purpose.” … Proc., sec. 1869), and it must be established under the ordinary rules of evidence.

In Re Redevelopment Plan for Bunker Hill v. Goldman

61 Cal. 2d 21 · California Supreme Court · Feb 27, 1964

The de facto doctrine in sustaining official acts is well established. … In this connection the trial court found that although the Fourth Street cut has physically severed the southern part of the project area at Hope Street and Grand Avenue, the challenged area south of Fourth Street is clearly