Case law

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.

People v. Cooper

115 Cal. Rptr. 2d 219 · California Supreme Court · Jan 14, 2002

Murder is one of the qualifying felony offenses specified in section 667.5, subdivision (c)(1). … It concluded that the electorate clearly intended that a second degree murderer serve 10 years before parole consideration and that an application of the more liberal credits scheme under section 2933 would be contrary to

Guardianship of Ann S.

45 Cal. 4th 1110 · California Supreme Court · Mar 19, 2009

the guardianship is established. … “(b) The court shall appoint a court investigator or other qualified professional to investigate all factors enumerated in subdivision (a).

Huntington Park Redevelopment Agency v. Martin

38 Cal. 3d 100 · California Supreme Court · Feb 28, 1985

Section 4 of that article provides that "Cities, Counties and special districts, by a two-thirds vote of the qualified electors of such district, may impose special taxes on such district...." … , the scheme establishes *107 that redevelopment agencies passively receive the revenue from taxes levied by other agencies.

People v. Carpenter

15 Cal. 4th 312 · California Supreme Court · Apr 28, 1997

Purnell testified under a grant of immunity that she bought it at defendant’s request and gave it to him. He paid for it. … Defendant’s statement, “I want to rape you,” clearly established his intent, which was also indicated by evidence that on two other occasions, one earlier and one later, he did in fact rape.

City of Long Beach v. Morse

31 Cal. 2d 254 · California Supreme Court · Dec 30, 1947

This statute clearly provides that the state's interest in the lands is transferred in trust for certain uses and purposes. … It is already established by City of Long Beach v.

Ghirardo v. Antonioli

8 Cal. 4th 791 · California Supreme Court · Nov 28, 1994

We see no reason why this well-established rule should not apply to usury cases. In DCM Partners v. … Ghirardo’s premise is that such a relationship establishes a loan. That is too broad.

People v. Smith

151 Cal. 619 · California Supreme Court · Aug 9, 1907

The jury were entitled to know what was meant by the inquiry of defendant as to whether deceased could repeat “them words again,” and to know what words of deceased defendant referred to, in order to clearly understand the … This principle of law is so well established that the citation of authorities is unnecessary. In fact, we do not understand the rule to be quéstioned by the respondent.

American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Northern California, Inc. v. Deukmejian

32 Cal. 3d 440 · California Supreme Court · Sep 27, 1982

It has adduced no evidence to establish a confidential source for any specific information on any of the cards. … The word "clearly" is significant.

People v. Warren

45 Cal. 3d 471 · California Supreme Court · May 26, 1988

"Death-qualified" Juries (3) Defendant Woodrow urges us to reexamine our holding in People v. Fields (1983) 35 Cal.3d 329, 342-353 [ 197 Cal. … This evidence clearly betrays Woodrow's intention not merely to aid in the criminal enterprise but to kill as well.

Arm v. State Bar

50 Cal. 3d 763 · California Supreme Court · May 3, 1990

Though this court generally declines to consider exculpatory evidence not presented to the hearing panel and thus immune to cross-examination (Lydon v. … He shall promptly review the terms and conditions of his probation with that referee to establish a manner and schedule of compliance with the terms of probation.

People v. Leach

15 Cal. 3d 419 · California Supreme Court · Oct 23, 1975

Since we found it “clearly” established that “the money offered by Murphy for killing his wife motivated [Saling] and Jerry Carnes to participate in the plan,” and that “the transfer of the money was one of [the conspiracy … inmate. 18 Counsel for Leach has presented no authority in support of the claim of improper inducement, other than cases emphasizing the need for the *444 corroboration of accomplice testimony and forbidding the granting of immunity

Gudger v. Manton

21 Cal. 2d 537 · California Supreme Court · Feb 9, 1943

It arises chiefly from the failure to clearly distinguish between malice implied in law and actual malice. … That he was able is established by the evidence.

Estate of Boggs v. Boggs

19 Cal. 2d 324 · California Supreme Court · Feb 2, 1942

Boggs qualified as executrix of her father’s will, and thereafter she filed her first account current, to which the executors of Mrs. Clark’s will, appellants herein, filed objections. … Boggs’ financial status demonstrates clearly that he was not solvent during the period under consideration.

People v. Superior Court (Romero)

13 Cal. 4th 497 · California Supreme Court · Jun 20, 1996

The words used clearly indicate the Legislature proceeded from the assumption that section 1385 remained in effect in Three Strikes cases. … Moreover, it is well established that a court may exercise its power to strike under section 1385 “before, during or after trial,” up to the time judgment is pronounced. (People v.

City of Carmel-By-The-Sea v. Young

2 Cal. 3d 259 · California Supreme Court · Mar 26, 1970

Thus although there are individual differences between the disclosure laws discussed above, there is clearly one common element in all of them. … As used in this division, the term “corporation” does not include a charitable corporation which qualifies for exemption from the corporation tax under Section 23701d of the Revenue and Taxation Code. 3603.

In Re Hall

30 Cal. 3d 408 · California Supreme Court · Dec 17, 1981

It would therefore not qualify as “newly discovered evidence” for the purpose of a motion for new trial. (People v. Williams (1962) 57 Cal.2d 263, 270 [ 18 Cal.Rptr. 729 , 368 P.2d 353 ].) … As it was virtually the only damning evidence against petitioner, that testimony clearly satisfies the statute’s test of materiality.

Bruner v. Superior Court

92 Cal. 239 · California Supreme Court · Dec 12, 1891

The language is, not that the court shall direct the sheriff, “ or some other person,” or “ any qualified citizen,” or “ any other person over the age of eighteen ” (as in case of service of summons in civil cases), to summon … But the cor *249 rect doctrine on that subject was clearly stated by this court in Levy v.

Stewart v. Stewart

199 Cal. 318 · California Supreme Court · Sep 2, 1926

Justice Harrison, who wrote the qualifying opinion in the Estate of Burdick, supra, expressly concurred in the opinion of Mr. Justice Temple in the Spreckels case. … 881), to change the otherwise general and long-established rule of property except in its application to the particular and limited purposes of said inheritance tax law.

Robey v. Superior Court

56 Cal. 4th 1218 · California Supreme Court · Jun 27, 2013

One is that the detection of a distinctive odor through a police officer’s sense of smell may establish probable cause that a closed container holds contraband. This proposition is well established. (See Johnson v. … The Robbins plurality further elaborated: “Expectations of privacy are established by general social norms, and to fall within the second exception of the footnote in question a container must so clearly announce its contents