Case law

Maine v. Superior Court

68 Cal. 2d 375 · California Supreme Court · Mar 18, 1968

This determination may be based on such evidence as qualified public opinion surveys or opinion testimony offered by individuals, or on the court’s own evaluation of the nature, frequency, and timing of the material involved … Unless this result be attained, one of the most important purposes for which Government is organized and Courts of Justice established will have definitively failed.” (People v. Yoakum (1879) supra, 53 Cal. 566, 571 .)

People v. Fioritto

68 Cal. 2d 714 · California Supreme Court · Jun 20, 1968

The majority completely disregard this central issue, clearly presented and established in this ease, by merely stating, “Although the confrontation of defendant with his two juvenile accomplices who had confessed injected … Were you implicated any way in other jobs in that area—at a previous time were you connected with any burglary in another establishment in that area? “A. No. “Q.

People v. Snyder

92 Cal. Rptr. 2d 734 · California Supreme Court · Feb 24, 2000

In its amicus curiae brief, the FPPC supports this view, which “because of the agency’s expertise ... is entitled to great weight unless clearly erroneous or unauthorized.” (Pacific Legal Foundation v. Unemployment Ins. … The Court of Appeal agreed to the extent the record established the defendant in fact had acted in the capacity of a campaign manager. ( McCauley, supra, 16 Cal.App.4th at p. 1267 .)

Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center

23 Cal. 3d 899 · California Supreme Court · Mar 30, 1979

The court's conclusion that the National Labor Relations Act controlled the issues there presented indicates that Lloyd by no means created any property right immune from regulation. Eastex, Inc. v. … Such a holding clearly violates federal constitutional guarantees announced in Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner (1972) 407 U.S. 551 [ 33 L.Ed.2d 131 , 92 S.Ct. 2219 ].

In Re Osslo

51 Cal. 2d 371 · California Supreme Court · Dec 23, 1958

Where bias and prejudice at the trial on the part of the trial judge is established, then there has been a denial of due process. (See, Kreling v. … As qualified by these principles the criterion for determining bias and prejudice is what the trial judge said or did. (McKay v. Superior Court, 98 Cal.App.2d 770 [ 220 P.2d 945 ].)

Alber v. Owens

66 Cal. 2d 790 · California Supreme Court · May 29, 1967

Indeed the record before us establishes a duty on the part of defendants respectively to furnish plaintiff a safe place to work, either on the theory that as a result of an invitor-invitee relationship they owed him a common … Defendants would now have us adopt a rule clearly tending to thwart these statutory purposes.

People Ex Rel. Van De Kamp v. American Art Enterprises, Inc.

33 Cal. 3d 328 · California Supreme Court · Jan 31, 1983

It is clearly all three. … Precedent establishes the in personam and punitive aspects of these remedies. In discussing the act, People v.

Boeken v. PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.

48 Cal. 4th 788 · California Supreme Court · May 13, 2010

As the court explained in Roybal, supra, 207 Cal.App.3d at pages 1086-1087: “The statutory term ‘with prejudice’ clearly means the plaintiff’s right of action is terminated and may not be revived. ... … This rule is so well and firmly established that an investigation of its reason and philosophy would be idle and useless. . . . [f] In Baker v.

People v. Walker

33 Cal. 2d 250 · California Supreme Court · Dec 29, 1948

In May, 1946, defendant burglarized another establishment, taking from it a roll of safety and detonating fuse and a roll of priming cord. … The Court: Clearly understanding all I have said? The Defendant: *262 Yes. The Court; Counsel waives? Mr. Girard: Yes, I waive. Mr. Henderson: The people waive, your Honor.”

Angelucci v. Century Supper Club

59 Cal. Rptr. 3d 142 · California Supreme Court · May 31, 2007

such establishments. … In Crowell , plaintiffs, White persons, filed suit against their real estate agent, under the predecessor to the Act, for failing to seek out qualified African-American purchasers for their home.

AMADOR VALLEY JT. UN. HIGH SCH. v. State Bd. of Equal.

22 Cal. 3d 208 · California Supreme Court · Sep 22, 1978

Rather, our sole function is to evaluate article XIII A legally in the light of established constitutional standards. … We held in McFadden that the measure under scrutiny therein was clearly a revision, both because of its varied aspects and because of the "substantial curtail[ment]" of governmental functions which it would cause.

Young v. Gnoss

7 Cal. 3d 18 · California Supreme Court · May 4, 1972

Petitioner Young established his present residence in Marin County, California, on March 10, 1972. Prior to that date he was a resident of Iowa. … The latter purpose is clearly evident in sections 455 and 459, which in effect furnish political parties with current names and addresses of all registered voters in each constituency.

Gribaldo, Jacobs, Jones & Associates v. Agrippina Versicherunges A. G.

3 Cal. 3d 434 · California Supreme Court · Nov 6, 1970

Statement of the Case Defendants, foreign organizations engaged in the business of writing insurance in California through duly qualified brokers, issued to plaintiffs an architects or engineers professional indemnity insurance … [Gribaldo argues that defendants are liable because the trial court’s ruling in the De Jaeger action establishes that Hersey and Gribaldo are identical.

People v. Memro

38 Cal. 3d 658 · California Supreme Court · Jun 6, 1985

The Evidence Code clearly supported appellant’s theory of discovery. … Coburn was qualified to testify as a psychiatric expert. Dr.

Stockton v. Common Council of Stockton

41 Cal. 147 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1871

To bring its validity within the control of the Courts, it must be clearly subversive of the Constitution.” See, also, Rice v. Foster, 4 Harrington, 479 ; Fisher v. McGier, 1 Gray, 1 ; Commonwealth v. … Hence it results that the Legislature is politically omnipotent, except in those particulars in which its power has been limited, qualified, or absolutely withdrawn by the provisions of the Federal or the State Constitution

J.M. v. Illuminate Education, Inc.

California Supreme Court · May 14, 2026

But this allegation — which is the only reference in the second amended complaint to students and parents, as opposed to educators, having access to data stored by Illuminate — does not clearly indicate that Illuminate maintains … The alleged “access provided” is qualified by the purpose of “aid[ing] . . . educational evaluation, monitoring of progress, and determining an educational plan.”

In Re Wood

194 Cal. 49 · California Supreme Court · Jun 20, 1924

“It is now clearly settled that a court of equity will enjoin the criminal intimidation of workingmen, in order to protect the property interests of their employers. … It is not claimed here, nor was it claimed in the court below, that the evidence was insufficient to establish the *63 truth of the charges.

People v. Reed

13 Cal. 4th 217 · California Supreme Court · Apr 25, 1996

Although the defendant’s prior conviction for second degree burglary did not on its face necessarily constitute burglary of an inhabited dwelling, so as to qualify as a serious felony (§ 1192.7, subd. … The preliminary hearing transcript excerpts from defendant’s prior case were clearly introduced as hearsay.

People v. Ochoa

110 Cal. Rptr. 2d 324 · California Supreme Court · Aug 6, 2001

The trial court also properly concluded defendant failed to establish a prima facie violation of his right to a jury drawn from a fair cross-section of the community. “ ‘In order to establish a prima facie violation of the … We need not decide either question here, because defendant clearly failed to satisfy Duren's third prong.

People v. Breaux

1 Cal. 4th 281 · California Supreme Court · Dec 30, 1991

guilt, thereby clearly implying that the evidence is not the equivalent of a confession and is to be evaluated with reason and common sense. … Carrera, supra, 49 Cal.3d 291 , 317 .) 12 In any event, as noted above, the prosecutor's comment was clearly limited to the evidence presented at trial.