Case law

People v. Mayoff

42 Cal. 3d 1302 · California Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1986

Under these circumstances we will conclude that defendant had no reasonable expectation that his land would be immune from such limited aerial surveillance, and that the surveillance was permissible under the United States … This second residence is clearly visible in the aerial photographs taken during the overflight.

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 ].

People v. Fuiava

53 Cal. 4th 622 · California Supreme Court · Feb 6, 2012

) “ „A person is qualified to testify as an expert if he [or she] has special knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education sufficient to qualify him [or her] as an expert on the subject to which his testimony … McDaniel (9th Cir. 2006) 458 F.3d 860, 863-867 [concluding there is no clearly established federal law for purposes of federal habeas corpus review of a state court‟s decision to admit propensity evidence, and noting that

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.

Matson Terminals, Inc. v. California Employment Commission

24 Cal. 2d 695 · California Supreme Court · Aug 18, 1944

Its failure to do so clearly evinces an intent that it did not so intend. … That phrase clearly embraces the decision on appeal. Paraphrasing, it would read that the benefits are payable regardless of a reversal on appeal.

Watson v. Sutro

86 Cal. 500 · California Supreme Court · Nov 29, 1890

It is clearly a deed of conveyance. … The description of quantity expressed in acres qualified by the words “more or less” has always been regarded indefinite and general.

In Re Hamilton

84 Cal. Rptr. 2d 403 · California Supreme Court · Jun 30, 1999

Accordingly, no basis for relief on habeas corpus has been established. … Therefore, in this regard as well, no ground for relief on habeas corpus is established.

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.

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

White v. Davis

133 Cal. Rptr. 2d 648 · California Supreme Court · May 1, 2003

As CSEA maintains, these past California cases clearly establish that although the conditions of public employment generally are established by statute rather than by the terms of an ordinary contract, once a public employee … Maine (1999) 527 U.S. 706, 754 [ 119 S.Ct. 2240, 2266 , 144 L.Ed.2d 636 ]), and that a lower federal court had held that California has not waived this immunity (Baird v.

Peralta Federation of Teachers Local 1603 v. Peralta Community College District

24 Cal. 3d 369 · California Supreme Court · May 25, 1979

Further, the reference to 13337 and 13337.5, in excluding temporary employees classified under these sections, clearly implies that section 13503.1 does embrace community college districts in its positive part, otherwise … Rather, it authorizes a particular type of temporary assignment and establishes the single limitation thereto.

California Employment Commission v. Kovacevich

27 Cal. 2d 546 · California Supreme Court · Jan 29, 1946

This is especially true *552 since subdivision (1) had already clearly and definitely covered all services on a farm up to and including the harvesting of crops. … Not only the language of the contracts but all the surrounding features likewise establish the respective transactions as agreements of sale.

People v. Soto

88 Cal. Rptr. 2d 34 · California Supreme Court · Aug 23, 1999

testimony of an expert witness who first has been properly qualified. … In the article, the authors state that the 1992 NRC Report “failed to state clearly enough that the ceiling principle was intended as an ultra-conservative calculation, which did not bar experts from providing their own ‘

People v. Anderson

266 Cal. Rptr. 3d 283 · California Supreme Court · Jul 23, 2020

Beneath all three statutory pleading requirements lies a bedrock principle of due process. “ ‘No principle of procedural due process is more clearly established than that notice of the specific charge, and a chance to be … Finally, the Attorney General argues Anderson cannot show he was harmed by the pleading defect and has thus failed to establish reversible error.

People v. Montes

58 Cal. 4th 809 · California Supreme Court · Mar 13, 2014

that Sergeant Beard was not qualified to testify as an expert. … Defendant points to Williams, in which the officers who qualified as gang experts had more years of experience with gangs and more hours of specialized training, and had qualified as gang experts in prior trials.

People v. Mills

48 Cal. 4th 158 · California Supreme Court · Mar 1, 2010

[f] Thus even if it were true, as defendant argues extensively, that social science evidence now shows conclusively that death-qualified juries are more prone to convict than those not thus qualified, that evidence does not … Thus, the question of whether defendant established a prima facie case is moot.” (Id. at p. 613, fn. 8.)

Cranston v. City of Richmond

40 Cal. 3d 755 · California Supreme Court · Dec 30, 1985

Excessive Punishment Appellant next argues that "the sanction of dismissal for a traffic infraction is clearly excessive." … It is obvious that any apparent limitation on the employee's conduct through the use of this qualifying *777 term is illusory, for `unbecoming' has no inherent, objective content from which ascertainable standards defining

People v. Royce

106 Cal. 173 · California Supreme Court · Feb 28, 1895

Bo doubt embezzlement may be established, under certain circumstances, without proof *178 of a demand, as where other evidence clearly shows an appropriation by an employee of his employer’s funds, with intent to do so fraudulently … received, but that goes only to the evidence, and not to the fact, of the embezzlement, which may be proved by other evidence long before the period for accounting arrives, and before his successors could be elected or qualified

People v. Scott

61 Cal. 4th 363 · California Supreme Court · Jun 8, 2015

A court may also consider nondiscriminatory reasons for a peremptory challenge that are apparent from and “clearly established” in the record (People v. … Viewed as a whole, the record in this case clearly establishes nondiscriminatory reasons for excusing R.C. and H.R. that dispel any inference of bias.

Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Board

225 Cal. Rptr. 3d 517 · California Supreme Court · Nov 27, 2017

The MMC statute establishes a two-tiered system of review. … In ALRB I, we held that an ALRB regulation providing farm labor organizers a qualified right of access to agricultural employers’ premises did not constitute an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power.