Case law

Kalloch v. Superior Court

56 Cal. 229 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1880

He said in that case : *238 “ By ‘ the law of the land ’ is most clearly intended the general law'—a law which hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry, and renders judgment only after trial. … The accusation may be by Grand Jury, or without one, the trial by jury or by Court, and wdiatever is established will be 6 due process of law,’ so that it be general and impartial in operation, and disregard no provision

People Ex Rel. Younger v. Superior Court

16 Cal. 3d 30 · California Supreme Court · Feb 4, 1976

(Recommendation Relating to Sovereign Immunity, 4 Cal. Law Revision Com. Rep. (Jan. 1963) p. 817.) … Defendant Port of Oakland is clearly an enterprise.

Addison v. Addison

62 Cal. 2d 558 · California Supreme Court · Mar 15, 1965

(Armstrong, “ Prospective” Application of Changes in Community Property Control —Rule of Property or Constitutional Necessity 1 (1945) supra, 33 Cal.L.Rev. 476, 495-496.) *567 Clearly the interest of the state of the current … As the United States Supreme Court has observed, “Like many other constitutional provisions, the privileges and immunities clause is not an absolute.

Western Oil & Gas Assn. v. Air Resources Board

37 Cal. 3d 502 · California Supreme Court · Dec 17, 1984

The record in the sulfate hearing clearly establishes that the current state of scientific knowledge on the health effects of air pollution does not permit the establishment of a precise ambient air quality standard such … The health danger from sulfates was clearly established.

People v. Woody

61 Cal. 2d 716 · California Supreme Court · Aug 24, 1964

, the immunity afforded religious practices by the First Amendment is not so rigid. … contention that application of the disqualifying provision of the statute abridged her right to the free exercise of her religion The United States Supreme Court reversed, finding, first, that the denial of compensation benefits clearly

People v. Sloan

64 Cal. Rptr. 3d 137 · California Supreme Court · Aug 16, 2007

‘To immunize’ defendant from conviction of [assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury and battery with serious bodily injury simply because a great bodily injury enhancement was found true under the … (b)(1)) “unequivocally establishes that the electorate *122 intended to qualify as separate strikes each prior conviction that a defendant incurred relating to the commission of a serious or violent felony, notwithstanding

Customer Co. v. City of Sacramento

10 Cal. 4th 368 · California Supreme Court · Jun 12, 1995

He could easily see out without disclosing his location, and we could not see clearly the interior of the store. … Clearly, those vehicles did not constitute nuisances and had not lost their value prior to the spraying.

Torres v. City of Los Angeles

58 Cal. 2d 35 · California Supreme Court · Jun 21, 1962

As stated, there was then no general immunity from liability for the negligent operation of municipally owned and operated vehicles. … This section, for the first time, enumerated in detail the specific exemptions available to qualifying vehicles and the conditions which made the exemptions available.

City & County of San Francisco v. Spring Valley Water Works

39 Cal. 473 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1870

The provision is not a restriction upon the right of the city to purchase more than a proportionate share from the company, but a limitation' upon its right to take without ¡compensation. *480 The addition to the qualifying … in that action, and, among other things, pleaded as a defense that the defendant, by the force and effect of certain ordinances and laws, was bound to furnish such water free of charge, and that such duty and right was clearly

Union of Med. Marijuana Patients, Inc. v. City of San Diego

250 Cal. Rptr. 3d 818 · California Supreme Court · Aug 19, 2019

Through long practice, we "afford great weight to the Guidelines except when a provision is clearly unauthorized or erroneous under CEQA." ( Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. … On the contrary, as our discussion demonstrates, Muzzy Ranch clearly requires a public agency to consider the substance of a proposed activity in determining its status as a project.

Jankey v. Song Koo Lee

55 Cal. 4th 1038 · California Supreme Court · Dec 17, 2012

Our first task, then, is to determine whether section 55 qualifies as such a law. … The Ninth Circuit‟s finding of conflict preemption implicitly rests on the view that Congress not only established the rule for awarding attorney fees incurred on account of defending an ADA claim, but also intended to immunize

County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court

California Supreme Court · Jul 10, 2023

Clearly, the emphasis of the Tort Claims Act is on torts.” (Kizer, at p. 145, fn. 4.) … The County argues, first, that the Hospitals’ compliance with the Government Claims Act’s claims presentation requirements establishes that they seek money or damages covered by the Act’s immunity provisions.

In re Estate of Wardell

57 Cal. 484 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1881

Between them and the legitimate offspring of the same parents the law has established cognatic relations, and either is as capable as the other of exercising inheritable rights. … To the full extent of those rights she was entitled to all the privileges and immunities of heirship. If her mother had died intestate, her right to a distributive share of the estate would have been unquestionable.

Vandermost v. Bowen

53 Cal. 4th 421 · California Supreme Court · Jan 27, 2012

Thus, there is no question that the legal issue presented by the petition—what state Senate districts should be used for those elections in the event the proposed referendum qualifies for the ballot—is clearly an issue of … This clearly distinguishes the Commission-certified map from each of the alternatives proposed by petitioner.

People v. Tilton

37 Cal. 614 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1869

and qualified.” … This is as clearly a provision for the temporary vacancy as a direction that the Governor, or some other body, shall appoint for that time.

McCaughey v. Lyall

152 Cal. 615 · California Supreme Court · Jan 14, 1908

After his death, Susan McCaughey was duly appointed and qualified as administratrix of his estate. … It is clearly a matter to which the rule of stare decisis should apply.

People v. Garcia

216 Cal. Rptr. 3d 75 · California Supreme Court · Mar 20, 2017

But this construction, he concludes, is unconstitutional under well-established precedent. … On this narrower understanding of the required waiver, Penal Code section 1203.067, subdivision (b)(3) does no more than what the law clearly permits: It has long been established that ―a State may validly insist on answers

Ramirez v. State Bar

28 Cal. 3d 402 · California Supreme Court · Nov 10, 1980

Thus, these restraints qualify for the strict scrutiny reserved for enactments abridging pure speech. Fn. omitted.] … the officers be immune from personal liability.

In Re Catalano

29 Cal. 3d 1 · California Supreme Court · Feb 11, 1981

Moreover, the exemption of section 552.1 is clearly not intended solely to facilitate union-employee communication. … Whether the 1978 amendment to that subdivision codified existing law, as we stated in Sears, or created new law, it would clearly defeat the legislative purpose if union activities immunized from prosecution under that amendment

People v. Estrada

220 Cal. Rptr. 3d 801 · California Supreme Court · Jul 24, 2017

Whatever else Estrada‘s admission of guilt established, however, it did not by itself establish that Estrada was ―armed with a firearm or deadly weapon.‖ (§ 1170.12, subd. (c)(2)(C)(iii).) … To make this determination, the court considered more than just the facts established by Estrada‘s guilty plea.