Case law

Leoni v. State Bar

39 Cal. 3d 609 · California Supreme Court · Aug 22, 1985

We analyze petitioners’ letter program under the line of cases according qualified protection to commercial speech and examine the cases and policies which govern misleading advertising generally. … Applying these well established principles to the case at bench we conclude that Rule 2-101(A) is a permissible regulation of misleading advertising.

Blotter v. Farrell

42 Cal. 2d 804 · California Supreme Court · May 18, 1954

This implied power to amend and repeal is especially necessary in regard to establishment of councilmanic boundaries since our democratic system of government requires, whenever possible, equality of representation. … It seems clear that the fault lies not in the failure of the Legislature to indicate clearly a method of redistricting, but in its failure to provide for such a procedure at all.

People v. Pantages

212 Cal. 237 · California Supreme Court · Apr 2, 1931

Concededly promises of immunity are admissible; they are, however, rarely made. … sympathy or pity of the jurors for defendant should be legally declared to have no part in a determination of the ‘issues of fact’, in order that a better understanding of the situation may be had, it becomes advisable to more clearly

Ingram v. Colgan

106 Cal. 113 · California Supreme Court · Feb 23, 1895

To provide adequate means of defense against this common enemy to those engaged in an important industrial pursuit is clearly within the general police powers of the legislative branch of the government, through which all … Chamberlain, supra, the same question was raised, and the court held that the statute under which the bonds were issued established them as debts to be paid, and hence that neither the auditor nor the board of trustees had

Good Government Group of Seal Beach, Inc. v. Superior Court

22 Cal. 3d 672 · California Supreme Court · Nov 27, 1978

We begin our analysis of these contentions with the decision in New York Times, which established the principles applicable to an action for libel brought by a public official. … The court reasoned that the advertisement qualified for constitutional protection because it expressed a grievance regarding one of the major issues of the time, that erroneous statements are inevitable in free debate and

People v. One 1940 Ford V-8 Coupe, Engine No. 18-5601077

36 Cal. 2d 471 · California Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1950

of the possession of those who might use them for unlawful purposes and that this was one of the methods devised to aid in crime prevention. [2] In construing the statutory provisions a court is not authorized to insert qualifying … So here the Legislature, to effect a purpose clearly within its power, has adopted a device consonant with recognized principles and therefore within the limits of due process."

Coppock v. State Bar

44 Cal. 3d 665 · California Supreme Court · Mar 3, 1988

It is clearly established that participation in a scheme to defraud a client’s creditors is a crime and subjects an attorney to discipline. (Allen v. … Yet emotional or “psychological disability, while it may ameliorate the moral culpability of an attorney’s misconduct, does not immunize him from disciplinary measures necessary to protect the public.”

Fox v. Western Pac. R.R.

31 Cal. 538 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1867

the intent clearly, and would not *552 have adhered to language which had been repeatedly construed as giving sanction to the practice. … It is clear that to the minds of the framers of those Constitutions such a result would have followed from the use of the general language found in our Constitution, for while they used it they proceeded to qualify its general

Illinois Commercial Men's Ass'n v. State Board of Equalization

34 Cal. 3d 839 · California Supreme Court · Oct 31, 1983

. *848 The stipulated facts establish the following: A person interested in purchasing an insurance policy would submit his application by mail to the plaintiffs’ home office in another state. … State of California (1944) 64 Cal.App.2d 820, 828-830 [ 149 P.2d 711 ]), a clearly distinguishable situation from the present case. 13 The judgment is affirmed. Bird, C.

Lane v. Hughes Aircraft Co.

93 Cal. Rptr. 2d 60 · California Supreme Court · May 10, 2000

The jury also found plaintiffs had "proved by clear and convincing evidence that Hughes ... was guilty of malice, oppression, fraud or despicable conduct," thus qualifying them for punitive damages under Civil Code section … The Legislature has authorized the award of punitive damages - an act clearly within its purview.

Boehm v. Spreckels

183 Cal. 239 · California Supreme Court · Jun 22, 1920

Appellants refer to cases which say that an agent may ' sell or transfer his right to the agency even where it is terminable at will. [3] In a qualified sense he may do so, but he cannot transfer to the purchaser anything … His incapacity to contract.” [5] It is also an established rule that a -sale of the subject of the agency made in good faith by the principal operates as a termination of the agency and is equivalent to a revocation thereof

Gourley v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

53 Cal. 3d 121 · California Supreme Court · Mar 28, 1991

The Legislature in adopting section 3291 has clearly determined two matters. … The fact that only part of a plaintiff’s damages qualify for prejudgment interest, with other parts unqualified, should not preclude recovery of prejudgment interest on the portion qualified.

People v. Feld

149 Cal. 464 · California Supreme Court · Jul 13, 1906

There was no pretense that a visit by defendant to the house where his child was, for the sole purpose of peaceably entering and seeing the child, was not a lawful mission, and the instructions given clearly indicated to … They were simply charges without proof to sustain them, no denial or evidence in reply was under the law required, and a failure to deny them would in no degree tend to establish their truth.

People v. Griffin

46 Cal. 3d 1011 · California Supreme Court · Oct 3, 1988

Defendant has cited no authority establishing that the court has a sua sponte duty to instruct the jury pursuant to CALJIC No. 2.13, nor have we found any. Indeed, with respect to Dr. … Defendant has pointed to no evidence that the voters who enacted the 1978 death penalty law intended to retain the requirement of the 1977 death penalty law that a felony murder be premeditated in order to qualify as a special

People v. Mosley

60 Cal. 4th 1044 · California Supreme Court · Mar 2, 2015

By contrast, section 3003.5(b) clearly “imposes an affirmative disability or restraint” that suggests its punitive character. ( Smith, supra, 538 U.S. at p. 97.) … Although “[a]ny number of governmental programs might deter crime without imposing punishment” ( Smith, supra, 538 U.S. at p. 102), the residency restriction hardly qualifies as ordinary government regulation.

Richey v. Autonation, Inc.

60 Cal. 4th 909 · California Supreme Court · Jan 29, 2015

Plaintiff here has not advocated for a greater scope of judicial review in cases involving unwaivable statutory rights, and thus, there is no reason to go beyond the framework Pearson Dental established. … We express no opinion in this case on the employment provision‘s legality in other contexts. 12  Even if Power Toyota‘s employment manual could have more clearly stated the

State Board of Equalization v. Superior Court

39 Cal. 3d 633 · California Supreme Court · Aug 22, 1985

Read together, these two portions of section 32 establish that the sole legal avenue for resolving tax disputes is a postpayment refund action. … Why should the board be required to prove the taxpayer's entire tax liability simply to defeat a clearly meritless suit for refund of a small partial payment?

Bernard v. Foley

47 Cal. Rptr. 3d 248 · California Supreme Court · Aug 21, 2006

Dict., supra, at p. 650), a definition that clearly applies to Foley and Erman. … The statutory scheme neither states nor implies that to qualify as a care custodian an individual must receive compensation.

In re Palmer

10 Cal. 5th 959 · California Supreme Court · Jan 28, 2021

punishment does not qualify as constitutionally excessive unless it is “ ‘out of all proportion to the offense.’ ” (Lynch, supra, at p. 424.) … What Rodriguez claimed was that his prolonged confinement under an indeterminate life sentence qualified as constitutionally disproportionate punishment.

Mangini v. Aerojet-General Corp.

12 Cal. 4th 1087 · California Supreme Court · Apr 4, 1996

/trespass theories of liability in all other respects, particularly the contention that the contamination of their property caused by Aerojet’s dumping and burning of hazardous chemicals over the life of its lease might qualify … In this case the evidence clearly showed that no one knows how bad the contamination is or how to remedy it—indicating an absence of substantial evidence of abatability.