Case law

In Re Jeanice D.

28 Cal. 3d 210 · California Supreme Court · Oct 20, 1980

To insure that the benefits of YA commitment are made available to the qualified 16- or 17-year-old offender, Welfare and Institutions Code section 707.2 mandates that a person convicted as an adult for an offense committed … There are well established principles employed in interpreting initiative measures.

McCoy v. Hearst Corp.

42 Cal. 3d 835 · California Supreme Court · Nov 13, 1986

Hatfield had obtained this information from a qualified State Bar source. However, Hatfield refused to divulge his bar source. … A qualified stale Bar source said that a disciplinary review committee has decided to impose unspecified disciplinary action against him.

Californians for an Open Primary v. McPherson

43 Cal. Rptr. 3d 315 · California Supreme Court · May 25, 2006

I Proposition 62, an initiative that qualified for the November 2, 2004, statewide General Election ballot, proposed a constitutional amendment to permit so-called open primaries. 1 In an apparent response to that measure … provision with regard to an initiative constitutional amendment tax reform measure that presented to the voters in a single proposition provisions (1) amending the *772 revenue and finance article; (2) eliminating the sovereign immunity

Von Schmidt v. Huntington

1 Cal. 55 · California Supreme Court · Mar 15, 1850

It can scarcely be said to be useful as a practical guide, for it is open to so many exceptions, and qualifications, and limitations, that the nature, extent and application of it cannot be always clearly defined. … It is true that it has been held in some of the cases that where the bill seeks the dissolution of the company, all the members must be made parties, however numerous they may be, but this doctrine has been greatly qualified

Vallejo & Northern R.R. v. Reed Orchard Co.

169 Cal. 545 · California Supreme Court · Mar 5, 1915

But the section says nothing concerning the mode of determining the other facts necessary to establish the right of the plaintiff to take the property in question. … Hence, even if the ruling had been clearly erroneous, we cannot say that it was sufficiently prejudicial to warrant a reversal.

People v. Box

99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 69 · California Supreme Court · Aug 17, 2000

Its inquiry clearly sought to ascertain from the prospective jurors whether they harbored any improper bias. … This record, reviewed independently by the trial court, clearly established specific non-race-related reasons why a prosecutor might want to excuse these prospective jurors, e.g., Mr.

American-Hawaiian Engineering & Construction Co. v. Butler

165 Cal. 497 · California Supreme Court · May 28, 1913

It does not purport to qualify or affect the right of the contractor to receive the moneys due him for work already done at the time of his failure, *Page 514 unless the proceeding is carried to the extent of an actual discontinuance … The facts found clearly show a waiver of the right to demand damages for delay in completion after September 1, 1906. The evidence still more clearly establishes such waiver.

People v. Talbot

64 Cal. 2d 691 · California Supreme Court · Jun 3, 1966

Under the circumstances, there was clearly a basis for the giving of an instruction on the felony-murder rule. … Apart from matters admitted by defendant and established at the trial of guilt, the photograph . . . tended to prove only that Mrs. Love died in unusual pain.

Layton v. State Bar

50 Cal. 3d 889 · California Supreme Court · May 7, 1990

(Perna), to assist her in seeing that the Estate was closed and the trust established. … First, much of Layton’s misconduct clearly encompassed actions taken in the capacity of an attorney.

DiGenova v. State Board of Education

57 Cal. 2d 167 · California Supreme Court · Jan 9, 1962

establishes an intention to make the remedy immediately available to the end of removing as far as possible the existing hazards to children. … Rush (1955) 45 Cal.2d 345, 351, fn. 3 [ 289 P.2d 450 , 54 A.L.R.2d 1137 ], “The significance of a denial in any particular case is also to be understood as further qualified by the fact that under the Rules on Appeal a denial

People v. Chism

58 Cal. 4th 1266 · California Supreme Court · May 5, 2014

Given A.D.’s background, it would have been odd and clearly suspicious for the prosecutor to strike A.D. … J.S. appeared to be a well-qualified juror, no less qualified than several white jurors whom the prosecutor accepted.

People v. Linden

52 Cal. 2d 1 · California Supreme Court · Apr 22, 1959

No hope of immunity or reward was extended, and in the officers’ opinion defendant’s statements were voluntary. Lieutenant Gebhart and other officers in a police car took defendant to the Homicide Division. … Uneontroverted evidence clearly establishes defendant’s guilt; at the trial defendant did not object to the prosecutor’s remarks; defendant in argument to the jury admitted that he killed Officer Wise 6 and said that he desired

People v. Ault

33 Cal. 4th 1250 · California Supreme Court · Aug 16, 2004

Superior Court (1992) 3 Cal.4th 435, 456-157, fn. 18 [ 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 92 , 834 P.2d 786 ] [People’s state constitutional right to due process does not “trump” existing statutory privileges and immunities, including psychotherapist-patient … Navarette (2003) 30 Cal.4th 458, 526 [ 133 Cal.Rptr.2d 89 , 66 P.3d 1182 ]) and will not be disturbed “ ‘unless a manifest and unmistakable abuse of discretion clearly appears’ ” (People v.

People v. Carmen

43 Cal. 2d 342 · California Supreme Court · Aug 17, 1954

It is stated in each document that defendant is an Indian, but this must be interpreted to refer only to his race and blood because the People qualified their stipulation with the statement that defendant has never been subject … using the word “Indian” may be derived from the fact that the documents submitted by both parties were entitled “stipulation [regarding] application to produce evidence,” since the “application” which is thus referred to clearly

Drumgo v. Superior Court

8 Cal. 3d 930 · California Supreme Court · Mar 5, 1973

The singular circumstances of this proceeding go farther than to pique one's curiosity; they clearly reveal an abuse of discretion. … Phrasing the question another way: what compelling state interest is served by denying appointment of the qualified and willing attorney of defendant's choice? The obvious answer is: none.

Hasson v. Ford Motor Co.

19 Cal. 3d 530 · California Supreme Court · May 31, 1977

At trial plaintiffs relied primarily on the testimony of three expert witnesses to establish both the cause of the accident and defendants’ responsibility therefor. … As in the case of the instructions described above, plaintiffs sought the insertion of a qualifying phrase “although manifested later.”

People v. Love

56 Cal. 2d 720 · California Supreme Court · Nov 2, 1961

Only the fiat of the majority denies validity to the clearly expressed intention (and implied finding) of the Legislature (Pen. … Actually it would have been abolished before now, for history clearly establishes the fact that disproportionate penalties shock human feelings and result in the equalization of crime and punishment.

Estate of Calhoun

44 Cal. 2d 378 · California Supreme Court · Apr 26, 1955

For the purposes of the present case, it may be assumed that a foster sister, if otherwise qualified, may claim the right to letters of administration. [1] According to section 422, a relative may claim priority to letters … "The respondent's relationship to her deceased mother would be the determining factor in establishing her status as an heir of [her stepfather]; but the title to the property she is entitled to receive by reason of that status

People v. Shaw

17 Cal. 2d 778 · California Supreme Court · Apr 21, 1941

I said, “Because the report has been approved and the list has been fully established.” … “A review of the testimony hereinbefore narrated in detail clearly indicates that the named employees of the civil service department under the orders of their superior officer, Gravatt, directly committed the acts which

Rosicrucian Fellowship v. Rosicrucian Fellowship Non-Sectarian Church

39 Cal. 2d 121 · California Supreme Court · Jun 20, 1952

The general rule that courts will not interfere in religious societies with reference to their ecclesiastical practices stems from the separation of the church and state, but has always been qualified by the rule that civil … “Dominant use” clearly means the superior right and the judgment in other parts heretofore quoted defines such rights.