Case law

McKee v. Dodd

152 Cal. 637 · California Supreme Court · Jan 21, 1908

In support of appellant’s position under this section it was established in evidence that under the laws of Hawaii an action for the recovery of any debt founded upon any contract, obligation, or liability,' where the cause … His failure in this regard gave rise to the cause of action, and, clearly therefore, that cause of action arose in the state of New York. In a legal sense the cause of action cannot have two places of origin.

Payne v. City of San Francisco

3 Cal. 122 · California Supreme Court · Apr 15, 1853

It differs essentially from those provisions of law which are construed by the courts as being merely directory; and it does not come within the rule established by this court in the case of The People, ex relatione Harris … Not only did the plaintiff fail to qualify in time, but it does not appear that he ever qualified before a proper officer.

Desert Environment Conservation Ass'n v. Public Utilities Commission

8 Cal. 3d 739 · California Supreme Court · Jan 26, 1973

Under these circumstances an order by this court compelling the commission to adopt a particular procedure at this time would contravene the priorities established by the Legislature. … This is not to say, of course, that regulations under the EQA will be immune from review once adopted by the commission.

Albertson v. Raboff

46 Cal. 2d 375 · California Supreme Court · Apr 10, 1956

(See Veeder, Absolute Immunity in Defamation: Judicial Proceedings, 9 Columb.L.Rev. 463, 469.) … Clearly a person who attempts to establish a claim to property knowing of its falsity can only be motivated by an improper purpose.

People v. Fletcher

California Supreme Court · Aug 25, 2025

The voters could have amended section 1192.7(c) with language that makes gang-related felonies immune from subsequent changes. … Similarly, Anderson explained, “Clearly, the Legislature intended that the qualifying status of a conviction would be fixed upon the date of the prior conviction, so that no subsequent actions, including those listed in [

Taylor v. Board of Trustees

36 Cal. 3d 500 · California Supreme Court · Jul 26, 1984

“In any district in which appointments are made from eligible lists established by examination, special eligible lists shall be established at the end of each school year which consist of the names of those employees who … With all respect, the argument overlooks the history of the pertinent statutes which, as we have demonstrated, quite clearly refutes this interpretation.

McAlpine v. Baumgartner

10 Cal. 2d 409 · California Supreme Court · Dec 22, 1937

such proviso; with the result that the principal part of the statute or ordinance thus modified remains intact excepting as it may be thus qualified. … In short, a proviso carves special exceptions only out of the enacting clause; and those who set up any such exception, must establish it as being within the words as well as within the reason thereof. ’ (United States v.

In re Cabrera

55 Cal. 4th 683 · California Supreme Court · Oct 29, 2012

(c)(8)(B))3 and that the signed drawings qualified as source items under the “Association” category (id., subd. 3 “Tattoos and symbols. … Cabrera, by contrast, does argue that the CDCR‟s proffered interpretation is clearly unreasonable. He relies on In re Andrade (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 807, but the case is clearly distinguishable.

Ley v. Dominguez

212 Cal. 587 · California Supreme Court · May 1, 1931

in each ease was not inserted by the signer of the petition, but by its sponsors, the work being rendered especially difficult because, just prior to January 1, 1930, the election precinct lines within the city were re-established … is qualified.

Slater v. Blackwood

15 Cal. 3d 791 · California Supreme Court · Dec 24, 1975

It is clearly established that “. . . there is but one cause of action for one personal injury [which is incurred] by reason of one wrongful act.” (Busick, supra, at p. 975 ; see Panos, supra, at p. 638 ; 3 Witkin, Cal. … Corning Hospital Dist. (1961) 55 Cal.2d 211 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 89 , 359 P.2d 457 ], we held that governmental entities were no longer immune from liability for the torts of their agents.

People v. Arcega

32 Cal. 3d 504 · California Supreme Court · Sep 30, 1982

This series of events establishes that during the critical reexamination of appellant, Dr. … The blanket immunity of Tarantino avoids such an anomaly in this state.

Plummer v. Brown

70 Cal. 544 · California Supreme Court · Aug 31, 1886

Notwithstanding the judgment, the plaintiff insists that the land ought to have been awarded to him, because, as it is alleged, he established his right to purchase it under the laws of the United States by satisfactory proof … Was the plaintiff a qualified pre-emptor ? —and that those issues were found against the plaintiff and in favor of Brown.

Garcia v. Superior Court

50 Cal. 3d 728 · California Supreme Court · May 3, 1990

In their first amended complaint, plaintiffs clearly distinguish between the liability of Ybarra, which is based on statements, and that of the medical personnel, which is based on a failure to act: “As a proximate result … We reached that conclusion because the Legislature, in enacting the immunity statute, intended to limit the immunity to cases involving misrepresentations of a financial or commercial character.

People v. Vines

51 Cal. 4th 830 · California Supreme Court · May 19, 2011

) “ „ “ „The burden is on the party seeking severance to clearly establish that there is a substantial danger of prejudice requiring that the charges be separately tried.‟ [Citation.] [¶] „The determination of prejudice … Hunter did, as defendant observes, distinguish use immunity from transactional immunity in rejecting a requirement of a cautionary instruction. “Under federal law the prosecutor cannot grant transactional immunity.

Sivertsen v. City of Menlo Park

17 Cal. 2d 197 · California Supreme Court · Jan 31, 1941

The question, therefore, is whether such discrimination violates the equal protection clause of the federal Constitution and the privilege and immunities provision of the state Constitution. … The court concluded that such ordinance was valid, even though there clearly was classification. Therefore, it cannot be said that the court in its opinion established or approved of a rule of no discrimination.

Volkswagen Pacific, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles

7 Cal. 3d 48 · California Supreme Court · May 10, 1972

Volkswagen of America and VW consult with respect to the establishment of retail dealerships in thé exclusive territory of VW. … Appellants, who claim the immunity from tax and thus bear the burden of establishing the conditions for its existence, have failed to prove that packaging of the automobiles was possible or practicable.

Miller v. Glass

44 Cal. 2d 359 · California Supreme Court · Apr 22, 1955

Such holding would do violence to the provisions of Penal Code, section 836, prescribing the conditions of a lawful arrest, and would be contrary to the settled rules established by the cases dealing with false arrest and … I am firmly of the opinion that these cases were erroneously decided as clearly pointed out in my dissenting opinions therein.

Milgate v. Wraith

19 Cal. 2d 297 · California Supreme Court · Jan 21, 1942

If the statutes were identical and if the law were clearly established in New York, the opinion would have considerable persuasive force, but such is not the case. … S. 783, 785, stated the problem thus: ‘But, in abrogating the common-law rule of non-liability where the car is not operated in the owner’s service, does the statute destroy both immunities or but one ?

People ex rel. Kimberly v. De La Guerra

40 Cal. 311 · California Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1870

“This treaty is the law of the land, and admits the inhabitants of Florida to the enjoyment of the privileges, rights and immunities of the citizens of the United States.’ … Tbe respondent is clearly a citizen of tbe United States, and tbe judgment should be affirmed. So ordered. By Erodes, C. J.: I concur in tbe judgment. Sprague, J., expressed no opinion.

Lewis v. Superior Court

82 Cal. Rptr. 2d 85 · California Supreme Court · Feb 8, 1999

Application of established law to undisputed facts must leave no room for doubt regarding the proper result. … The opinion describes the general nature of the recreational use immunity, concludes the record establishes that the immunity applies because Green’s purpose in riding his horse was for recreation, and rejects the argument