Case law

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.”

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.

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

Vickers v. State Bar

32 Cal. 2d 247 · California Supreme Court · Jul 30, 1948

Vickers testified at one time that he believed this signature was "for the divorce" but he later said that it was only for the purpose of establishing residence, which accords with Cocke's explanation of the document. … Respondent proved what it claimed to be the law of Chihuahua, Mexico, at the time in question by a member of the bar of that place, qualified as an expert upon divorce law.

People v. Bacigalupo

6 Cal. 4th 457 · California Supreme Court · Dec 7, 1993

._[ 117 L.Ed.2d 367 , 112 S.Ct. 1130 ]) does not clearly have anything to say about a statute that merely directs the jury to consider relevant evidence. … Florida (1992) 505 U.S._ [ 120 L.Ed.2d 854 , 112 S.Ct. 2926 ] [interpreting Florida law, under which “death may be the appropriate recommendation if, and only if, at least one statutory aggravating factor is established”

Laisne v. California State Board of Optometry

19 Cal. 2d 831 · California Supreme Court · Mar 16, 1942

The Globe Cotton Oil Mills case is clearly distinguishable from the situation in the present case. … to establish inferior courts only with local jurisdiction.

Carter v. State Bar

44 Cal. 3d 1091 · California Supreme Court · Apr 7, 1988

However, the findings are vague and conclusory, and overlook more serious acts of misconduct which were adequately charged and clearly established by the evidence (i.e., wilfully neglecting, not communicating with and abandoning … We recently observed that “carefully prepared disciplinary records are essential to fulfillment by the State Bar and this court of our responsibility to ensure that practicing attorneys are competent and morally qualified

People v. Diaz

51 Cal. 4th 84 · California Supreme Court · Jan 3, 2011

Clearly, any justification for the warrantless search of a mobile phone must come from the possibility that the arrestee might, during the arrest, destroy evidence stored on the phone. … Even when they happen to be stored on a device carried on the person, these records are clearly distinct from the person of the arrestee.

Kasky v. Nike, Inc.

119 Cal. Rptr. 2d 296 · California Supreme Court · Jan 10, 2003

Applying established principles of appellate review, we must assume in this opinion that these allegations are true. *946 The issue here is whether defendant corporation’s false statements are commercial or noncommercial … [stating that when speech “concerns no public issue” and is “wholly false and clearly damaging,” it “warrants no special protection” under the First Amendment].)

Kasky v. Nike, Inc.

27 Cal. 4th 939 · California Supreme Court · May 2, 2002

Applying established principles of appellate review, we must assume in this opinion that these allegations are true. *946 The issue here is whether defendant corporation’s false statements are commercial or noncommercial … [stating that when speech “concerns no public issue” and is “wholly false and clearly damaging,” it “warrants no special protection” under the First Amendment].)

Maynard v. Brandon

30 Cal. Rptr. 3d 558 · California Supreme Court · Jul 11, 2005

These differences were immaterial, Pressler concluded, because the relevant Labor Code provisions manifested the Legislature’s intent to immunize the 10-day limit from extension. … Pressler held, “In this case, the statutory framework established by the Legislature for the administrative resolution of wage disputes clearly demonstrates the mandatory and jurisdictional nature of the requirement that

Santa Clara County Local Transportation Authority v. Guardino

11 Cal. 4th 220 · California Supreme Court · Sep 28, 1995

The policy of the Constitution clearly forbids this procedure. … When a referendum petition qualifies prior to the effective date of a county ordinance, the ordinance is suspended pending reconsideration and repeal of the ordinance by the board of supervisors or submission of the measure

YMCA v. County of LA

35 Cal. 2d 760 · California Supreme Court · Aug 18, 1950

and aid in the development of their characters for the general benefit of society, and that as integral parts of the single, overall Y.M.C.A. program in the advancement of its fundamental objectives, all such operations qualify … San Francisco, 211 Cal. 387 [ 295 P. 813 ], where the cemetery association conducted a hotel for profit, which was a use clearly dissociated from the exempt cemetery purpose.

People v. Ault

17 Cal. Rptr. 3d 302 · 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.

Steinhart v. County of Los Angeles

47 Cal. 4th 1298 · California Supreme Court · Feb 4, 2010

Of course, Steinhart’s disagreement with the Assessor’s determination clearly qualified as a “[d]ispute[] involving the assessed value of’ the property. … As we have explained, where a party asserts estoppel, “the facts proved must be such that an estoppel is clearly deducible from them. . . .

People v. Rojas

California Supreme Court · Dec 18, 2023

are incorporated in the form in which they exist at the time of the reference and not as subsequently modified, and that the repeal of the provisions referred to does not affect the adopting statute, in the absence of a clearly … Sections 14 and 16, by their terms, “change[d] the ‘lock-in’ date for determining the existence of qualifying offenses (such as violent or serious felonies) under the Three Strikes law.

People v. Bradford

15 Cal. 4th 1229 · California Supreme Court · Jul 14, 1997

Third, Ohanesian’s qualifications as a photographer clearly were established. Fourth, Ohanesian’s testimony was quite brief and did not confuse or mislead the jury. … Defendant clearly has not met his burden of establishing prejudice in the present case.

People v. Lisenba

14 Cal. 2d 403 · California Supreme Court · Oct 5, 1939

“The prosecution produced Doctor Decker, concededly qualified to express medical opinions, and who examined and interpreted certain X-ray photographs theretofore taken in the Colorado hospital, who testified that, in his … In other words, it is the holding that the state need not establish each particular fact of the case beyond a reasonable doubt, if it establishes beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of every material fact alleged in the

Superior Court v. County of Mendocino

13 Cal. 4th 45 · California Supreme Court · Apr 18, 1996

As a historical matter, the Superior Court’s argument clearly is untenable. … Moreover, even at the time the California Constitution contained a provision declaring that trial courts “shall always be open,” that clause was qualified at all times by an explicit exception for “legal holidays and nonjudicial

People v. Rhinehart

9 Cal. 3d 139 · California Supreme Court · Mar 20, 1973

Defendant took the stand in his own defense, denied shooting either Miss Graham or Crump, and sought to establish an alibi. … In any event, since the case against defendant was very strong, any error in this respect would clearly have been nonprejudicial.