Case law

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.

Akley v. Bassett

189 Cal. 625 · California Supreme Court · Sep 22, 1922

Its language clearly indicates an intention on the part of the grantor to limit a life estate in Joseph M. … W. 902 ]), but, after such life estate terminated, the possession, unless in some way qualified, did become adverse and the statute of limitations began to run at that time. (Mann v.

Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co.

61 Cal. 4th 899 · California Supreme Court · Aug 3, 2015

As our reference to Little suggests, Concepcion does not immunize adhesive arbitration processes from state law unconscionability principles as broadly as Valencia contends. … In any event, our prior decisions establish that adhesiveness does not alone necessarily establish procedural unconscionability.

Estate of Adams

39 Cal. 2d 309 · California Supreme Court · Jul 15, 1952

Harkness thereafter became the duly appointed and qualified executor and has been substituted as appellant in this proceeding. … She wanted them established in business safely, and that is about all she told me about the deal.

Reserve Insurance Co. v. Pisciotta

30 Cal. 3d 800 · California Supreme Court · Feb 18, 1982

We begin with established principles applicable to the interpretation of insurance policies. … Busch testified that he was a qualified broker with 20 years’ experience, that he understood his duty to inform Pisciotta of any coverage problems, and that he failed to review Pisciotta’s file before obtaining coverage on

People v. Soto

51 Cal. 4th 229 · California Supreme Court · Jan 20, 2011

AB 457 requires that a victim over the age of 10 establish that she did not consent to the act of sexual abuse.” (Ibid.) … These decisions, forming an unbroken line from 1981 until the majority opinion in this case, clearly establish that “duress” and its associated terms “menace” and “fear of . . . bodily injury” are used in section 288(b)(1

People v. Boyer

48 Cal. 3d 247 · California Supreme Court · Mar 13, 1989

According to Lewis, they sought only to learn “why” he had done it, in order to establish the precise degree of culpability. … Assuming defendant was in “custody,” the People acknowledge Lewis clearly violated Miranda when he ignored several explicit requests by defendant to remain silent and consult a lawyer.

People v. Polk

61 Cal. 2d 217 · California Supreme Court · Mar 31, 1964

The murder charge against Matthews was not dismissed to grant him immunity so that he might be a wit *228 ness for the People (Pen. Code, § 1099); Matthews was never called as such a witness. … Here a common element of substantial importance clearly appears, as the robbery-murder charged in Count III was the first overt act of the conspiracy charged in Count I.

People v. Cole

44 Cal. Rptr. 3d 261 · California Supreme Court · Jun 12, 2006

The provision’s second sentence, the People argue, is aimed at “licensed professional providers,” and simply establishes a complementary exemption for qualifying “ ‘professional person[s]’ ” from the “historical prohibition … First, as amicus curiae CMA notes, they show that “where the Legislature want[s] to exempt health plans from” commercial restrictions in the Business and Professions Code, “it clearly knows how to do so.”

Mueller v. Elba Oil Co.

21 Cal. 2d 188 · California Supreme Court · Nov 2, 1942

(In due course trustee was regularly elected, appointed, and qualified.) April 4, 1938 Trustee filed petition for marshaling assets of partners. … Such offer clearly stated the conditions on which it was made.

Guzzetta v. State Bar

43 Cal. 3d 962 · California Supreme Court · Sep 8, 1987

Although the new guidelines do not establish any specific or minimum sanction for such misconduct (see std. 2.4, subd. … Only if the amount of funds or property misappropriated is insignificantly small or if the most compelling mitigating circumstances *982 clearly predominate, shall disbarment not be imposed.

People v. Sanchez

246 Cal. Rptr. 3d 296 · California Supreme Court · Apr 29, 2019

Here, based on the prosecutor’s representation, the court did not clearly err in permitting the prosecutor to try to establish the requisite personal knowledge. … The admonitions were squarely on point and clearly instructed the jury on its duty.

Navarro v. Lamusga

32 Cal. 4th 1072 · California Supreme Court · Apr 29, 2004

As explained below, we conclude that just as a custodial parent does not have to establish that a planned move is “necessary,” neither does the noncustodial parent have to establish that a change of custody is “essential” … Clearly, the court must consider the past conduct of the parents in fashioning a custody order that serves the best interests of the children.

Jersey Maid Milk Products Co. v. Brock

13 Cal. 2d 620 · California Supreme Court · Jun 8, 1939

The director shall have the power to establish additional areas or to modify areas theretofore established when he deems the establishment or modification of such areas necessary or advisable to effectuate the purposes of … Constitution which requires that all laws of a general nature shall have uniform operation. *641 Section 21 of article I of the Constitution provides: “ . . . nor shall any citizen, or class of citizens, be granted privileges or immunities

Hansen Brothers Enterprises, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors

12 Cal. 4th 533 · California Supreme Court · Jan 8, 1996

In those jurisdictions which have considered the question, the answer is a qualified “no” under the “diminishing asset” doctrine, an exception to the rule banning expansion of a nonconforming use that is specific to mining … Our conclusion that Hansen Brothers has not established a right to mine the entire 60 acres covered by its.

Graham v. Scissor-Tail, Inc.

28 Cal. 3d 807 · California Supreme Court · Feb 5, 1981

As the Cross & Brown case indicates, an entity or body which by its nature is incapable of “deciding” on the basis of what it has “heard”—as, in that case, one of the principal parties to the contract—does not qualify. … The answer to this question, we have concluded, must clearly be yes.

Citizens Against Forced Annexation v. Local Agency Formation Commission

32 Cal. 3d 816 · California Supreme Court · Dec 2, 1982

Annexing and annexed citizens clearly share general concerns with the governance and welfare of the area. . . . … We review each of the asserted interests, explaining that each may qualify as a compelling interest under the constitutional test.

People v. Roybal

79 Cal. Rptr. 2d 487 · California Supreme Court · Jan 13, 1999

He failed to carry his burden of establishing good cause. … The statements in the tapes clearly purport to describe a condition perceived by the declarant.

People v. Medina

51 Cal. 3d 870 · California Supreme Court · Nov 19, 1990

argue he was adequately qualified to state a lay opinion as to whether defendant understood what Green was saying. … Rptr. 543 ] [defendant's qualified right to withdraw insanity plea].)

County of Los Angeles v. Faus

48 Cal. 2d 672 · California Supreme Court · Jun 21, 1957

Under these circumstances, the prior sales here were clearly distinguishable from the prior sales in the Cole case. … The novelty of the judicial technique adopted by the majority is more clearly illustrated by the second portion of the majority opinion.