Case law

In Re Richard M.

14 Cal. 3d 783 · California Supreme Court · Jul 16, 1975

basis she claims that the trial court erred in awarding custody to the father, even though such award was based upon a proper consideration of the boy’s best interests and, supported by substantial evidence, would be immune … “The statute clearly means that the father must treat his illegitimate child as he would naturally treat his legitimate child [under the particular circumstances], not as the majority of men in his *799 financial circumstances

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

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.

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.

People v. Kempley

205 Cal. 441 · California Supreme Court · Oct 31, 1928

The preceding section, 894, as amended in 1911, provides: “Before accepting a person drawn as a grand juror, the court must be satisfied that such person is duly qualified to act as such juror, but when drawn and found qualified … The evidence, other than that of the accomplice, is entirely insufficient to establish it.

Goldstein v. Superior Court

45 Cal. 4th 218 · California Supreme Court · Nov 17, 2008

But there are many legal rights which cannot be established by certain witnesses. . . . … I do not understand the majority position to be that absolute necessity can never arise in the context of a civil case, or that it has been clearly established in the present case that there is no such necessity.

Southern Pacific Transportation Co. v. Public Utilities Commission

18 Cal. 3d 308 · California Supreme Court · Nov 23, 1976

Clearly, there is no express authorization for such an assertion of power. Nor is it immediately apparent that such power can be inferred from other express constitutional or legislative authorizations. … In order to qualify for service on the superior court or the appellate courts of this state, a person must have at least 10 years’ experience as an attorney. (Const., art. VI, § 15.)

Knight v. Kaiser Co.

48 Cal. 2d 778 · California Supreme Court · Jun 28, 1957

Clearly the fact that the plaintiff is a trespasser or a bare licensee is relevant to the question what precautions the reasonable man would take to protect him. … It , cannot be denied, however, that in the case of adult trespassers and licensees the operation of no-duty rules has in many instances resulted in immunity for conduct that unreasonably endangered the plaintiff and was

Gray v. Hall

203 Cal. 306 · California Supreme Court · Feb 1, 1928

The meaning is, that every citizen shall hold life, liberty, property, and immunities under the protection of general rules which govern society.” Said case also discusses and cites with approval Hovey v. … The line of demarcation between void and voidable judgments is clearly marked and the judgment in question is void upon collateral attack in my opinion.

California Redevelopment Ass'n v. Matosantos

53 Cal. 4th 231 · California Supreme Court · Dec 29, 2011

Where, as here, ballot materials clearly demonstrate the drafters’ and voters’ intent, syntax is not dispositive. … Whether to establish a redevelopment agency is voluntary, but that has always been the case.

People v. Weidert

39 Cal. 3d 836 · California Supreme Court · Sep 19, 1985

The policy stated in Keeler and its progeny guards against the usurpation of the legislative function by the judiciary in the enforcement of a penalty where the legislative branch did not clearly prescribe one. (3 Sutherland … The words of subdivision (a)(10) contemplate that it is an accused’s subjective intent that is relevant in establishing a special circumstance finding under that statute.

People v. Deloza

76 Cal. Rptr. 2d 255 · California Supreme Court · Jul 9, 1998

Clearly, [defendant] had a reasonable opportunity to reflect upon his actions between the robberies and nevertheless pursued additional victims.” … These robberies qualify as serious felonies within the meaning of section 1192.7, subdivision (c)(19).

People v. Miranda

44 Cal. 3d 57 · California Supreme Court · Nov 12, 1987

(CALJIC No. 2.20.) 29 Defendant’s reliance on Rincon-Pineda is clearly misplaced. … Yuen (1939) 32 Cal.App.2d 151, 160 [ 89 P.2d 438 ], which are clearly inapposite.

People v. James

19 Cal. 3d 99 · California Supreme Court · Mar 15, 1977

Rptr. 739 ], three members of the vice squad sought to inspect a private steam bath establishment. One of the officers identified himself and asked to be admitted. … If the rule were otherwise, a thief who broke into and ransacked every store in a shopping center under one roof, or every apartment in an apartment building, or every room or suite in a hotel, [20] could claim immunity for

McKnight v. State Bar

53 Cal. 3d 1025 · California Supreme Court · Jun 6, 1991

Only if the amount of funds or property misappropriated is insignificantly small or if the most compelling mitigating circumstances clearly predominate, shall disbarment not be imposed. … Petitioner attempted to justify his actions by establishing client authorization.

John B. v. Superior Court

45 Cal. Rptr. 3d 316 · California Supreme Court · Jul 3, 2006

Bridget B., the plaintiff in the underlying action and real party in interest herein, is infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), the probable causative agent of acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). … John repeated that allegation a year later, shortly before he was diagnosed with acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). In November 2001, Bridget was told that the likelihood she had infected John was .03%.

In Re Morse

11 Cal. 4th 184 · California Supreme Court · Sep 1, 1995

Title companies usually will not establish a clear title unless and until all liens are paid. … A recent court decision has established that property protected under a declared homestead may not be subjected to prejudgment attachment.

People v. King

5 Cal. 3d 458 · California Supreme Court · Aug 16, 1971

As a qualified expert on the packaging and use of benzedrine, he believed that the bag might contain dangerous drugs. … The officer's self-described conduct violates established rules of search and seizure.

People v. Harris

9 Cal. 4th 407 · California Supreme Court · Dec 30, 1994

Defense counsel urged in closing argument to the jury: “Clearly [defendant] did not rob Mr. Atherton personally of any property.” (Italics added.) … Then, looking itself to all the relevant evidence, the court concluded the evidentiary record did not clearly establish malice; hence the court was unable to infer beyond a reasonable doubt that the mandatory presumptions

The People v. Edwards

57 Cal. 4th 658 · California Supreme Court · Aug 22, 2013

Even if some of Richards’s statements can be accurately described as mere observations, the underlined portions are clearly opinions or conclusions drawn *770 from observations. … Forensic evidence is not uniquely immune from the risk of manipulation.”]; Dungo, supra, 55 Cal.4th at pp. 639-640 (dis. opn. of Corrigan, J.).) But even if the distinction is permitted, Dr.