Case law

Laeng v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board

6 Cal. 3d 771 · California Supreme Court · Mar 6, 1972

Clearly in instances such as this, risks are initiated with the test. … The court rejected the employer’s contention, declaring that it could not find that an employment relationship had been established as a matter of law.

People v. Burney

47 Cal. 4th 203 · California Supreme Court · Jul 30, 2009

The circumstance that defendant had stopped the vehicle before shooting the victim does not establish that the victim had been released or otherwise disposed of, because *234 the kidnapping was clearly still in progress when … Defendant clearly attempted to minimize his culpability as much as possible, consistent with the evidence.

People v. Rosoto

58 Cal. 2d 304 · California Supreme Court · Aug 2, 1962

This contention of Franklin is clearly without merit. Fourth. … In context, they are clearly a continuation of the argument against Rosoto.

People v. Robinson

61 Cal. 2d 373 · California Supreme Court · Jun 16, 1964

Mississippi, 332 U.S. 463 [ 68 S.Ct. 184 , 92 L.Ed. 76 , 1 A.L.R.2d 1286 ]), and it is incumbent upon a defendant to establish such facts, Here, the appellants not only failed to establish any facts whatsoever, but they made … It follows that there is clearly sufficient evidence to support Robinson's conviction.

People v. Mitcham

1 Cal. 4th 1027 · California Supreme Court · Feb 24, 1992

He ultimately obtained immunity from any charges relating to the crimes in the present case, but not from other charges of robbery and theft which subsequently were brought against him in Alameda County. … The limiting instruction clearly was not nullified by the prosecutor’s closing argument. B. Denial of severance.

Salas v. Sierra Chemical Co.

59 Cal. 4th 407 · California Supreme Court · Jun 26, 2014

The Court of Appeal noted that Senate Bill No. 1818 stated it was “declaratory of existing law,” and cannot have been intended to immunize undocumented aliens from employer defenses that would apply against all other workers … At the time Senate Bill No. 1818 was enacted, the Court of Appeal asserted, existing case law barred an employee from recovering lost wages for wrongful termination if, as here, he was not legally qualified for the job, was

People v. Clapp

24 Cal. 2d 835 · California Supreme Court · Aug 31, 1944

As I view the law the evidence here establishes that the witness under discussion was liable to prosecution under the provisions that the defendants are accused of violating and that her acts constituted a separate and distinct … It does not clearly appear to me what implications are intended by the above quoted language “If a statutory provision so defines a crime that the participation of two or more persons is necessary for its commission,” etc

Connolly Development, Inc. v. Superior Court

17 Cal. 3d 803 · California Supreme Court · Aug 31, 1976

Clearly not. These laws not only fail to meet both requirements, they, in fact, fail to meet either. … It runs afoul of a clearly expressed legislative intent and, assuming general injunctive or declaratory relief is available, such relief would be inadequate under North Georgia.

Souza v. Corti

22 Cal. 2d 454 · California Supreme Court · Jul 8, 1943

Arthur took the car and in company with Corti stopped at Rocca's, a liquor dispensing establishment and dance hall. … Mull, supra, p. 72 ), as I view the matter, is based upon a misconception of the liability established by section 402 of the Vehicle Code.

Dyke Water Co. v. Public Utilities Commission

56 Cal. 2d 105 · California Supreme Court · Jun 22, 1961

“(d) Establish reasonable rules, specifications, and standards to secure the accuracy of all meters and appliances for measurements. … The purpose of said hearing was to establish a record as to whether or not the applicant should receive interim rate relief.

People v. Cardenas

California Supreme Court · Sep 4, 2025

[it is the defendant’s burden “ ‘to clearly establish that there is a substantial danger of prejudice requiring that the charges be separately tried’ ”].) … two qualifying predicate offenses. (Pen. Code, § 186.22, former subd. (e).)

In re Reno

California Supreme Court · Oct 31, 2012

He thus cannot qualify under the 180-day rule. … This rule is firmly established in law (People v.

Screen Extras Guild, Inc. v. Superior Court

51 Cal. 3d 1017 · California Supreme Court · Dec 3, 1990

Otherwise, the complaint on its face will establish good cause for the termination. … In enacting the LMRDA, Congress did not intend to immunize the kind of misconduct alleged here.

Ingersoll v. Palmer

43 Cal. 3d 1321 · California Supreme Court · Oct 29, 1987

Decisionmaking at the Supervisory Level The decision to establish a sobriety checkpoint, the selection of the site and the procedures for the checkpoint operation should be made and established by supervisory law enforcement … City of Berkeley (1982) 31 Cal.3d 545, 550 [ 183 Cal.Rptr. 73 , 645 P.2d 124 ] [city has no authority to erect traffic barriers not qualifying as traffic control devices under Veh. Code].)

Woodland Hills Residents Ass'n v. City Council of Los Angeles

23 Cal. 3d 917 · California Supreme Court · Apr 3, 1979

Although defendants seek to escape a remand in this case by suggesting that the present record conclusively demonstrates that plaintiffs’ action does not qualify for an attorney fee award under the new statute, we have concluded … Thus, under this established line of authority, section 1021.5 applies to the instant case. 3.

People v. Gallego

52 Cal. 3d 115 · California Supreme Court · Dec 20, 1990

Under this agreement with the prosecutor, Charlene was required to testify truthfully, and enjoyed no immunity for perjury. She testified at trial as set out above. 2. … In any event, the claim—at least as to the robbery, which is clearly a violent offense—is meritless. (People v.

Sierra Club v. California Coastal Commission

28 Cal. Rptr. 3d 316 · California Supreme Court · May 19, 2005

The Commission clearly does not violate the second limitation merely by considering the impacts within the coastal zone of the part of the proposed project that is outside the coastal zone. … We may not judicially write the deleted provision back into the Coastal Act simply because, as Sierra Club observes, “the coastal zone boundary does not immunize the zone against. . . impacts” from “project activities on

Rubenstein v. Doe No. 1

221 Cal. Rptr. 3d 761 · California Supreme Court · Aug 28, 2017

The Shirk plaintiff’s 2003 claim was clearly untimely if the cause of action accrued for purposes of the claims requirement in November 1979 and did not reaccrue later. … However, once we conclude, as we do, that section 340.1 did not establish a new accrual date, our reasons for rejecting a similar argument in Shirk, supra, 42 Cal.4th at page 214, apply here.

Estate of Larkin

65 Cal. 2d 60 · California Supreme Court · Aug 2, 1966

itself the property of the decedents. 1 It relies upon Probate Code section 259.2, which provides for the escheat of gifts which fail for want of the reciprocity required by Probate Code section 259, if there are no other qualified … The court rejected as “farfetched” the contention of the challengers that the California Legislature had undertaken to stimulate foreign states to extend reciprocal inheritance rights to our citizens, a matter clearly within

State of California v. Levi Strauss & Co.

41 Cal. 3d 460 · California Supreme Court · Mar 20, 1986

More fundamentally, the choice among the possible forms of fluid recovery is not clearly compelled by law. (See majority opn., ante, at pp. 472-479.) … Even attorneys general are not immune from careful oversight in their roles as class representatives.