Case law

People v. Buycks

California Supreme Court · Jul 30, 2018

For those who have completed their sentences for a qualifying felony, the resentencing court, upon receiving an application from a person with a qualifying felony conviction, “shall designate the felony offense or offenses … Thus, there is nothing in subdivision (k) that would have signaled to an informed voter that the well-established Estrada rule would not apply.

McNamara v. Oakland Building & Loan Association

131 Cal. 336 · California Supreme Court · Jan 11, 1901

The act of 1891, supra, made many and important changes and additions to the law, apparently with some intelligent reference to the law in other states and to the better established systems for such associations. … Whether the investment is a wise one to the borrower, who malíes all required payments, we are unable to say, but it is clearly not so to one who cannot persist in his payments until the scheme closes, or until the series

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. Pike

58 Cal. 2d 70 · California Supreme Court · Jun 27, 1962

The evidence “tends logically and by reasonable inference” to establish that fact (People v. … It may be directed to the eliciting of any matter which may tend to overcome or qualify the effect of the testimony given by him on direct examination. [Citations.] ...

Katzberg v. Regents of University of California

127 Cal. Rptr. 2d 482 · California Supreme Court · Nov 27, 2002

In the process of addressing various claims of immunity, and without focusing upon the propriety of damages as a remedy for the asserted violation, the court impliedly endorsed, in passing, the notion that there exists a … Clearly, although safety and happiness are inalienable rights, this provision of the Constitution does not establish the means whereby they may be enjoyed.

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

People v. J.G. (In Re J.G.)

243 Cal. Rptr. 3d 827 · California Supreme Court · Feb 25, 2019

When the drafters want[] to allow unpaid restitution to survive the dismissal of the 602 petition, they know how to say so clearly.” … J.G. next argues that allowing conversion of unpaid restitution to an enforceable civil judgment would be contrary to the voters’ intent in establishing the deferred entry of judgment procedure.

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. Chuck

78 Cal. 317 · California Supreme Court · Mar 5, 1889

For what purpose or upon what theory the evidence was admitted does not clearly appear. … The evidence he was seeking to have admitted was clearly incompetent. What was said was not only an argument in favor of its admission, but as to its effect.

People v. V.V.

51 Cal. 4th 1020 · California Supreme Court · Jun 6, 2011

In contrast, the term “maliciously” imports an additional element, namely, “a wish to vex, defraud, annoy, or injure another person, or an intent to do a wrongful act, established either by proof or presumption of law.” ( … Certainly the minors lit the firecracker “willfully” the act was clearly volitional. But nothing in the record justifies the majority’s conclusion the minors also lit the firecracker “maliciously.”

In Re Robbins

77 Cal. Rptr. 2d 153 · California Supreme Court · Aug 3, 1998

’s intent to engage in lewd and lascivious conduct with Christopher (which in turn was necessary to establish the death-qualifying special circumstances in this case), and it helped establish the first degree murder elements … Clearly, that institutional interest would suffer were the timeliness requirement to be ignored, as urged by the concurring and dissenting opinion.

People v. Zamudio

75 Cal. Rptr. 3d 289 · California Supreme Court · Apr 21, 2008

Indeed, as defendant explains in his brief, regarding this issue, Gladys made “no qualifying statement, spontaneous or otherwise.” … Subdivision (b) of that section establishes qualified protection for work product “other than a writing described in subdivision (a)”; such material is “not discoverable unless the court determines that denial of discovery

Commonwealth Acceptance Corp. v. Jordan

198 Cal. 618 · California Supreme Court · May 21, 1926

shares of class “A” common stock of the par value of ten dollars per share, and of five hundred shares of class “B” common stock without nominal or par value, it is not such a foreign corporation as can be permitted to qualify … This was clearly indicated by this court in its decision in the ease of Miles v.

People v. Navarette

133 Cal. Rptr. 2d 89 · California Supreme Court · Apr 28, 2003

Clearly, she was stating she could not answer the question in the abstract. Her answer does not establish bias or an inability to follow the law in a death penalty case. … safety establish their bias against him.

Staley v. State Bar

17 Cal. 2d 119 · California Supreme Court · Jan 29, 1941

White in mailing back the keys and repudiating the lease clearly demonstrated his intention of non-compliance with the terms of the lease. … On Smith’s death, Trask qualified and entered upon the performance of the trust, his management producing a net income of some $3,000 annually.

P. v. Santana

California Supreme Court · Jun 10, 2013

Taylor (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 11, 24 [“Unlike serious bodily injury, the statutory definition of great bodily injury does not include a list of qualifying injuries”].) … Keenan, supra, 227 Cal.App.3d at pp. 35-36 [cigarette burns to breasts “clearly involved a serious permanent disfigurement” under § 203 (fn. omitted)].)

People v. Robbins

45 Cal. 3d 867 · California Supreme Court · Jun 27, 1988

We need not address this contention, because any error under Misener was clearly not prejudicial to defendant. … A simple, unremarkable single instance of prior con *881 duct probably will not qualify, but a complex act requiring several steps, particularly premeditated, may well qualify.

People v. Tate

49 Cal. 4th 635 · California Supreme Court · Jul 8, 2010

A child can suffer physical, sexual, or psychological abuse, and parental neglect can also qualify as abuse. … , the victim’s severed finger in this case also does not qualify for that status.

Preston v. State Board of Equalization

105 Cal. Rptr. 2d 407 · California Supreme Court · Apr 2, 2001

We conclude that a refund claim sufficiently raises any contention that is intertwined with or clearly implied from contentions explicitly raised in the claim. … Instead, the Senate actually broadened “the types of [agreements] that qualify for an exemption . . . .” (Assem. Floor Analysis, Cone, in Sen. Amends, to Assem. Bill No. 103, as amended Aug. 17, 1993, p. 2.)

People v. Braden

California Supreme Court · Jun 5, 2023

We held the Legislature did not clearly indicate a contrary intent as to retroactivity. … Instead, it establishes when eligible individuals must make a diversion request.