Case law

Brown v. Mortensen

51 Cal. 4th 1052 · California Supreme Court · Jun 16, 2011

[“We do not, absent unambiguous evidence, infer a scope of pre-emption beyond that which clearly is mandated by Congress‟ language.”].) … Although Mortensen has the burden of establishing preemption (Bronco Wine Co. v.

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is politically omnipotent, except in those particulars in which its power has been limited, qualified, or absolutely withdrawn by the provisions of the Federal or the State Constitution

Scandinavian Airlines System, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles

56 Cal. 2d 11 · California Supreme Court · May 29, 1961

This appears to be the only logical explanation for holding that an instrument of interstate commerce is immune from state control or taxation in the absence of any showing that the Congress has entered the field. … It certainly has been established that any instrumentality of commerce is subject to taxation in its true domicile.

Dynamex Operations W., Inc. v. Superior Court of L. A. Cnty.

232 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1 · California Supreme Court · Apr 30, 2018

relationship and what is clearly one of independent, entrepreneurial dealing. … (Vt. 1972) 287 A.2d 554, 559 [explaining that under part C of the ABC test, “ ‘[t]he adverb “independently” clearly modifies the word “established”, and must carry the meaning that the trade, occupation, profession or business

People v. Frazier

California Supreme Court · Aug 5, 2024

was qualified to sit as a juror, including his demeanor during voir dire. … Defendant presents no basis for reconsidering this well- established precedent.

People v. Wallace

44 Cal. 4th 1032 · California Supreme Court · Aug 14, 2008

Here, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding Heredia qualified to testify on bloodstain interpretation. … Presence of motive may tend to establish guilt, absence of motive may tend to establish innocence. You will, therefore, give its presence or absence as the case may be the weight to which you find it entitled.”

People v. Gonzalez

44 Cal. Rptr. 3d 237 · California Supreme Court · Jun 12, 2006

The witnesses did claim lack of memory on a number of occasions, but they also gave clearly inconsistent testimony. … It was clearly probative on this point even if the exact position of the photographer was not known. It was not offered to show the height of the gunman or the lighting conditions.

Union Trust Co. v. State of California

154 Cal. 716 · California Supreme Court · Dec 21, 1908

As is clearly shown in the Liebman case, the bonds contain no such recitals of the due performance of conditions precedent as could operate as an estoppel in favor of bona fide holders, to deny want of power to issue the … with an act . . . entitled an act to open and establish a public street ... to be called Montgomery Avenue . . .”

Jacoby v. State Bar

19 Cal. 3d 359 · California Supreme Court · May 3, 1977

Too affluent to qualify for Legal Aid but too poor to afford the fees charged by many lawyers, the middle-class citizen often has to do without needed legal services. … But the facts of the case at bar clearly distinguish it from Belli .

Palos Verdes Faculty Ass'n v. Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District

21 Cal. 3d 650 · California Supreme Court · Jul 19, 1978

Clearly the amendment is purely prospective in effect. IV It is clear from the foregoing that the judgment herein must be affirmed. … By the same token, we do not read the new statute to preclude a district from making reasonable determinations as to the level and quality of “training” or “experience” which is to qualify for a particular level of credit

Rancho Santa Anita, Inc. v. City of Arcadia

20 Cal. 2d 319 · California Supreme Court · May 1, 1942

Arcadia did not require the city council to follow the requirements of section 3714 of the Political Code in levying its assessment for the fiscal year 1937-38 but, in my opinion, the allegations of the plaintiff’s complaint clearly … Pursuant to this constitutional authority, the Legislature has authorized the council of a city of the sixth class “To levy and collect annually a property tax, which shall not, without the assent of two-thirds of the qualified

Aryeh v. Canon Business Solutions, Inc.

55 Cal. 4th 1185 · California Supreme Court · Jan 24, 2013

The trial court read state law as establishing that “the clock [on a UCL claim] starts running when the first violation occurs.” … “A statute will be construed in light of common law decisions, unless its language „ “clearly and unequivocally discloses an intention to depart from, alter, or abrogate the common-law rule concerning the particular subject

People v. Lavender

60 Cal. 4th 679 · California Supreme Court · Dec 8, 2014

Our case law indicates that a reminder to the jury of the court‘s instructions to disregard a defendant‘s decision not to testify is, in the absence of objective evidence establishing a basis to question the effectiveness … found—and, because the People do not dispute it here, we will accept for purposes of this appeal—that the investigator‘s declaration recounting the jurors‘ failure to mention any admonition during their interviews with him qualified

People v. Bouzas

53 Cal. 3d 467 · California Supreme Court · Apr 18, 1991

This is clearly shown by sections 666 and 667 of the Penal Code.” … (ii) statutes providing for enhancement of a defendant’s sentence for a present offense if it is established that he has a qualifying prior conviction (e.g., § 666).

Hegglin v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board

4 Cal. 3d 162 · California Supreme Court · Feb 23, 1971

Thomason declined to render an opinion as to petitioner’s hepatitis since he did not “feel qualified to determine the disability and future care of such.” … Workmen’s Compensation Appeals Board (1966) 31 Cal.Comp.Cases 364), the testimony which petitioner sought to present was clearly not cumulative, as has been pointed out above.

Campbell v. Regents of University of California

25 Cal. Rptr. 3d 320 · California Supreme Court · Mar 7, 2005

Campbell claimed that less senior and less qualified coworkers were retained, however. On March 4, 1999, Campbell, through her attorney, filed an internal complaint against UCSF and her supervisors. … As discussed ante, at page 327, and as Torres recognized, “courts should not presume the Legislature in the enactment of statutes intends to overthrow long-established principles of law unless that intention is made clearly

Ryman v. American National Insurance

5 Cal. 3d 620 · California Supreme Court · Aug 30, 1971

The letter also clearly stated that by execution of the documents Mr. and Mrs. … Co. (1941) 18 Cal.2d 627 [ 117 P.2d 3 ], which holds that an insurer cannot “arbitrarily or capriciously” deny reinstatement to its former insured who is objectively qualified for such reinstatement.

People v. Carpenter

90 Cal. Rptr. 2d 607 · California Supreme Court · Nov 29, 1999

Defendant has a right to jurors who are qualified and competent, not to any particular juror.” (People v. Holt, supra, 15 Cal.4th at p. 656.) The actual jurors of this case were qualified and competent. … Using a “death-qualified” jury is permissible. (Id. at p. 402.)