Case law

In Re Brown

12 Cal. 4th 205 · California Supreme Court · Dec 18, 1995

Noting that “a tax is not immune from double jeopardy scrutiny simply because it is a tax” (id. at p__[ 128 L.Ed.2d at p. 779 , 114 S.Ct. at p. 1946 ]) and that “at some point, an exaction labeled as a tax approaches punishment … Only if the amount of funds or *221 property misappropriated is insignificantly small or if the most compelling mitigating circumstances clearly predominate, shall disbarment not be imposed.

Masterson v. Sine

68 Cal. 2d 222 · California Supreme Court · Feb 6, 1968

However, despite the law which until the advent of the present majority opinion has been firmly and clearly established in California and relied upon by attorneys and courts alike, that parol evidence may not be employed … Virtually every writing leaves some terms to be implied and almost none would qualify as integrations without implying some terms.

In Re Marks

71 Cal. 2d 31 · California Supreme Court · Apr 30, 1969

Here, such “directives of conduct” are clearly inferable from the declared purpose of the statute. (In re Petersen (1958) 51 Cal.2d 177, 185-186 [ 331 P.2d 24 , 77 A.L.R.2d 1291 ].) … (Id. at p. 60.) 15 "A short-term return procedure also has been established (not to exceed sixty days).

Mattz v. Superior Court

46 Cal. 3d 355 · California Supreme Court · Aug 22, 1988

Thus, McCovey is clearly dispositive of this matter. … Clearly, this approach must be rejected.

People v. Duarte

101 Cal. Rptr. 2d 701 · California Supreme Court · Dec 4, 2000

“It is well established that ‘we do not reach constitutional questions unless absolutely required to do so to dispose of the matter before us.’ ” (People v. … Cudjo, supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. 607 ) to qualify for admission under section 1230’s exception to the hearsay rule. B.

People v. Navarro

California Supreme Court · Oct 28, 2021

To prove defendant’s participation in a criminal street gang, it was necessary for the prosecution to establish that the Pacoima Flats gang qualified as a “criminal street gang” under the governing statute, section 186.22 … All of these crimes qualify as a predicate offense under section 186.22. (Id., subds. (e)(2), (3), (15).)

People v. Woodruff

235 Cal. Rptr. 3d 513 · California Supreme Court · Jul 19, 2018

We may also consider nondiscriminatory reasons for the peremptory strike that ‘necessarily dispel any inference of bias,’ so long as those reasons are apparent from and clearly established in the record.” (People v. … “are apparent from and clearly established in the record.” (People v. Reed, supra, 4 Cal.5th at p. 1000.)

Kleffman v. Vonage Holdings Corp.

49 Cal. 4th 334 · California Supreme Court · Jun 21, 2010

Vonage reasons that, when the Legislature drafted the statute, this was “the established legal definition” of the term “misrepresent” for purposes of the tort of misrepresentation, and nothing indicates the Legislature intended … It is true that the term “misrepresent” may encompass situations where someone, having undertaken to provide information regarding a matter, fails to disclose all facts that “ ‘materially qualify’ the limited facts disclosed

People v. Montiel

39 Cal. 3d 910 · California Supreme Court · Sep 26, 1985

After he was arrested in Arizona as an accessory, he was returned to California where he was granted immunity in exchange for his testimony. The victim, Gregorio Ante, was 78 years old and slightly disabled by a stroke. … Two of the exceptions to the per se reversal rule of Carlos are clearly inapplicable.

People v. Gonzales

54 Cal. 4th 1234 · California Supreme Court · Aug 2, 2012

It found that while defendant had clearly indicated he understood his rights, he never expressly agreed to waive them. … Defense counsel‘s primary argument in opposition was that the statements qualified as excited utterances.

Birbrower, Montalbano, Condon & Frank v. Superior Court

17 Cal. 4th 119 · California Supreme Court · Jan 5, 1998

As the Court of Appeal concluded, “. . . the Birbrower firm’s in-state activities clearly constituted the [unauthorized] practice of law” in California. … Section 6125 clearly states that no person shall practice law in California unless that person is a member of the State Bar.

People v. Carasi

44 Cal. 4th 1263 · California Supreme Court · Aug 25, 2008

By contrast, *1331 dismemberment of the victim, at least in the absence of evidence the victim was alive when it occurred, does not qualify. (People v. … That in appropriate cases the jury must be informed of relevant facts of the case beyond those charged in the information is well established. (Earp, supra, 20 Cal.4th at p. 853 ; People v.

People v. Harris

33 Cal. Rptr. 3d 509 · California Supreme Court · Aug 29, 2005

In exchange for her testimony, Mills received immunity from prosecution for charges of harboring a fugitive and receiving stolen property, and was placed in a witness relocation program. *325 When the police arrested defendant … He also claims the court excused a qualified juror and, in conducting assertedly inadequate voir dire, restricted his ability to determine the qualification of three other jurors.

People v. Pulido

15 Cal. 4th 713 · California Supreme Court · May 29, 1997

The robbery and homicide were clearly parts of one continuous transaction, bringing into unchallenged operation the felony-murder rule’s aggravation of culpability aspect; the only question here, as noted earlier, is the … Alternatively, CALJIC No. 8.27 could be qualified by telling the jury directly, through a separate supplemental instruction, that the rule of liability described in the instruction does not apply to a person who aids and

In re Richards

55 Cal. 4th 948 · California Supreme Court · Dec 3, 2012

As it was virtually the only damning evidence against *962 petitioner, that testimony clearly satisfies the statute’s test of materiality. … Sperber offered at trial could qualify as “false evidence” for purposes of Penal Code section 1473’s subdivision (b) if, for example, a generally recognized and relevant advance in science or technology proved under the preponderance

Orange County Social Services Agency v. Wendy H.

6 Cal. 4th 435 · California Supreme Court · Dec 6, 1993

Javan clearly had not achieved such status at the time Zacharia was removed from Wendy’s and Lee’s custody. … Ultimately, this presumption was rebutted by blood tests establishing that Javan was the biological father.

People v. Hayes

49 Cal. 3d 1260 · California Supreme Court · Dec 28, 1989

There was no conclusive ballistics evidence establishing defendant’s gun as the murder weapon. … The Burroughs court did not address the presumption of statutory prospectivity that we find clearly controlling in this case.

Ericksen, Arbuthnot, McCarthy, Kearney & Walsh, Inc. v. 100 Oak Street

35 Cal. 3d 312 · California Supreme Court · Dec 29, 1983

Clearly no party makes a decision on the scope of arbitration based on whether the contract in question involves interstate commerce.” ( 298 N.E.2d at p. 48, fn. 2 .) … The question seems to be to what extent the arbitration clause can be considered a separate contract independent of the underlying contract, and thus immune from claims of the underlying contract's invalidity. ” The United

Reader's Digest Assn. v. Superior Court

37 Cal. 3d 244 · California Supreme Court · Nov 19, 1984

(P. 731 [ 20 L.Ed.2d at p. 267 ).) 8 The quoted language establishes a subjective test, under which the defendant’s actual belief concerning the truthfulness of the publication is the crucial issue. (See Alioto v. … He sued for libel; the publisher asserted the qualified constitutional privilege on the ground that Wolston had become a “public figure.” Lower courts agreed with the publisher; the Supreme Court reversed.

People v. Holt

37 Cal. 3d 436 · California Supreme Court · Nov 26, 1984

A single "death qualified" jury was empaneled for both guilt and penalty phases. … The trial court clearly erred. (Cf. People v. Green (1980) 27 Cal.3d 1 , 23-26 [ 164 Cal. Rptr. 1 , 609 P.2d 468 ].) C.