Case law

People v. Santamaria

8 Cal. 4th 903 · California Supreme Court · Nov 28, 1994

The policies behind the doctrine do not clearly support its application to a retrial of that count. … Knife use is just as clearly an ultimate fact as to the use enhancement. But it is not an ultimate fact of murder. In Dowling v.

People v. Loyd

119 Cal. Rptr. 2d 360 · California Supreme Court · May 6, 2002

Restoring Harrell Just as the establishment of Procunier’s strict standard led to the abolition of the Harrell standard, the abandonment of Procunier led to Harrell’s restoration. … [“De Lancie was clearly not a simple application of the statutory language”]; id. at p. 41, fn. 1 (dis. opn. of Reynoso, J.) [issue implicates “constitutional right of privacy”].)

Taylor v. Superior Court

24 Cal. 3d 890 · California Supreme Court · Aug 21, 1979

If the conduct while clearly wrongful is not criminal, a punitive award may be necessary to deter. … Such conduct hardly establishes the evil motive requisite to a finding of malice. The majority today establish a new test for punitive damages.

People v. Williams

56 Cal. 4th 630 · California Supreme Court · May 6, 2013

Haynes reversed the Fifth Circuit’s decision because “no decision of this Court clearly establishes the categorical rule on which the Court of Appeals appears to have relied ....” … Supreme Court did not unreasonably apply clearly established federal law in concluding that trial court had implicitly credited prosecution’s stated reason when rejecting Batson challenge]; State v.

Lavinburg v. Schwalbe

161 Cal. 536 · California Supreme Court · Dec 13, 1911

The trust relation thus created was greatly relied on as tending to establish contestant’s case and we shall have more to say of it later. … This was clearly error under the rulings of this court in Estate of Dolbeer, 149 Cal. 245 , [ 86 Pac. 695 ]; Estate of Dolbeer, 153 Cal. 662 , [ 96 Pac. 266 ].

The People v. Mai

57 Cal. 4th 986 · California Supreme Court · Aug 26, 2013

Juror No. 12 qualified his views by indicating that “if court proved to me that defendant should be spared death—I might not vote death.” … On her questionnaire, M.H. did not qualify her support for the death penalty in any way.

People v. Gordon

50 Cal. 3d 1223 · California Supreme Court · Jun 21, 1990

As we shall explain, none establishes reversible error. A. … Thus, for example, it is well established that a statement made under a grant of immunity is not admissible as a declaration against penal interest. ( People v. Rice (1976) 59 Cal. App.3d 998, 1006-1007 [ 131 Cal.

Hooper v. Wells, Fargo & Co.

27 Cal. 11 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1864

The printed form of the instrument used in this case was evidently framed with a view to general use, where the point of destination was beyond, as ■well as within the routes established and used by defendants. … a latitude in performing a kind of service of so important a character as the one under consideration; and to permit a contract to have so unreasonable an effect as it would imply, the intention of the parties should be clearly

Brennon B. v. Super. Ct.

California Supreme Court · Aug 4, 2022

City of Los Angeles (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 808, 825 (Carter), quoting Qualified Patients Assn v. City of Anaheim (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 734, 764–765 (Qualified Patients).) … California Department of Corrections (S.D.Cal. 1996) 946 F.Supp. 829 [state prison does not qualify as a business establishment]; Goodfellow v.

Drouet v. Superior Court

3 Cal. Rptr. 3d 205 · California Supreme Court · Aug 11, 2003

We find that the Ellis Act qualifies as a “law pertaining to the hiring of property” under section 1942.5, subdivision (d), and that a landlord’s withdrawal of the property from the market is an exercise of “ ‘the right to … To permit retaliatory evictions . . . would clearly frustrate the effectiveness of the housing code as a means of upgrading the quality of housing.’ ” (Schweiger, supra, 3 Cal.3d at p. 512 , quoting Edwards v.

Garrett v. Swanton

216 Cal. 220 · California Supreme Court · Aug 11, 1932

of education, or school district, shall incur any indebtedness or liability in any manner, or for any purpose, exceeding in any year the income and revenue provided for such year, without the assent of two-thirds of the qualified … It was in reference to such a practical argument that this court stated in the case of In re City and County of San Francisco, supra, at page 438: “It also quite clearly appears that the so-called option on the part of the

City of Long Beach v. Lisenby

180 Cal. 52 · California Supreme Court · Feb 26, 1919

as follows: “No county, city . . . shall incur any indebtedness or liability in any manner or for any purpose exceeding in any year the income and revenue provided for such year, without the assent of two-thirds of the qualified … But the stated salary of a public officer fixed by statute is a matter over which the municipality has no control, and' with respect to which it has no discretion; and the payment of his salary is a liability established

Hartwell Corporation v. Superior Court

115 Cal. Rptr. 2d 874 · California Supreme Court · Feb 4, 2002

A court injunction, predicated on a contrary finding of utility noncompliance, would clearly conflict with the PUC’s decision and interfere with its regulatory functions in determining the need to establish prospective remedial … However, plaintiffs do not qualify as citizen enforcers of water quality standards under Proposition 65.

People v. Perez

259 Cal. Rptr. 3d 195 · California Supreme Court · Feb 27, 2020

Gardeley permitted a qualified expert witness to testify on direct examination to any sufficiently reliable hearsay sources used in formulation of the expert’s opinion. (See Gardeley, at p. 618.) … Sandoval (2007) 41 Cal.4th 825, 837, fn. 4 [request for a jury trial on aggravating circumstances “clearly would have been futile” when then-existing law required the trial court to deny the request and “was binding on the

Briggs v. Brown

221 Cal. Rptr. 3d 465 · California Supreme Court · Aug 24, 2017

This rule is a substantial revision of the policy established in Clark, supra, 5 Cal.4th 750. … And our established precedent underscores why we are not free to construe a deadline as directory where, as here, the enacting body “clearly expresses a contrary intent.” (People v.

Treadwell v. Nickel

194 Cal. 243 · California Supreme Court · Jul 31, 1924

The instruction was clearly misleading and the .trial court properly refused *265 to give it. … The plaintiff called a number of attorneys, who were qualified as experts, to testify to the value of his services.

People v. Cook

41 Cal. 3d 373 · California Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1985

An enclosed back yard whose outer boundary was within yards of appellant’s dwelling clearly satisfies this definition. … One who builds a swimming pool and sun-bathing area in his back yard expects privacy (hence immunity) from aerial inspection. ...” (Dean, supra, 35 Cal.App.3d at p. 117 , quoted in Joubert, supra.)

Jennings v. Marralle

8 Cal. 4th 121 · California Supreme Court · Aug 1, 1994

The FEHA is a statute which clearly states a public policy against discrimination on the basis of age in employment. … Amicus curiae California Dental Association, noting these exceptions, argues that to qualify as a fundamental public policy within the meaning of Gantt v.

Wells Fargo Bank v. Kirkwood

50 Cal. 2d 345 · California Supreme Court · May 23, 1958

The words, “equal in amount,” establish a purely quantitative limitation. … The proration provisions do not establish a policy that there shall be no state inheritance tax on any property qualifying for the federal marital deduction.

People v. Collins

195 Cal. 325 · California Supreme Court · Jan 24, 1925

established defendant's sobriety on the evening of the accident, and hence defendant's innocence of the charge." … It cannot be regarded as a special finding in any way qualifying the complete general verdict which preceded it. In State v.