Case law

Samuels v. Mix

91 Cal. Rptr. 2d 273 · California Supreme Court · Dec 30, 1999

Contrary to the expansive reading defendant would give the Laird dictum, we believe that, in enacting section 340.6, the Legislature clearly intended more than merely to codify the common law discovery rule, because section … Our holding in Hobart was qualified in this manner: “ ‘It is only where the party defrauded should plainly have discovered the fraud except for his own inexcusable inattention that he will be charged with a discovery in advance

People v. Gray

61 Cal. 164 · California Supreme Court · Jul 28, 1882

In order, however, for the defendant to be justified in acting upon the appearances, the circumstances must have been such as to excite the fears of a reasonable man.” *182 These instructions- must have been intended to qualify … We shall content ourselves by stating what we think is established by sufficient evidence.

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

People v. Jackson

45 Cal. 4th 662 · California Supreme Court · Feb 5, 2009

Even had defendant established that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to continue the trial in light of the high court’s decision in Atkins, the record before this court does not establish that defendant … A defendant is entitled to relief if the record clearly shows that the first appointed attorney is not providing adequate representation [citation] or that defendant and counsel have become embroiled in such an irreconcilable

In Re Benoit

10 Cal. 3d 72 · California Supreme Court · Sep 24, 1973

of these is the principle of constructive filing under the rubric of which to borrow the words of a leading authority “in a series of cases dealing mainly with incarcerated prisoners, the jurisdictional theory has been qualified … “Of course, the trial attorney is under no obligation to represent the defendant on the appeal, but where the defendant clearly indicates, as he did here, that he desires to appeal, the trial attorney is under a duty not

Otsuka v. Hite

64 Cal. 2d 596 · California Supreme Court · May 24, 1966

As the high court clearly explained in Murphy (at p. 43 of 114 U.S.), "The disfranchisement operates upon the existing state and condition of the person, not upon a past offense. ... … In the Brooks case the "majority" opinion holding that the conviction established the applicant's lack of "good moral character" was signed only by its author and one other judge out of a total of nine; four judges concurred

People v. Capistrano

59 Cal. 4th 830 · California Supreme Court · Aug 4, 2014

“Recent decisions of this court have emphasized the importance of meaningful death-qualifying voir dire. … In rejecting the defendant’s argument, we observed: “Given that question No. 68 was phrased unequivocally, a prospective juror’s decision to write ‘yes’ as an answer clearly established that the prospective juror held a bias

People v. Floyd

1 Cal. 3d 694 · California Supreme Court · Jan 27, 1970

I believe the prosecutor’s retribution argument was clearly misconduct. … I think it indisputable that this court would not even consider qualifying these principles but for the existence of capital punishment, and the existence of capital punishment is obviously not a judicially cognizable reason

People v. Canizales

248 Cal. Rptr. 3d 370 · California Supreme Court · Jun 24, 2019

To qualify, the record would need to include (1) evidence regarding the circumstances of defendants’ attack on Pride that would support a reasonable inference that defendants intentionally created a zone of fatal harm around … In Guiton, we did not establish the precise standard of review for cases governed by Green. (Guiton, 4 Cal.4th at pp. 1130-1131.)

People v. Valenzuela

California Supreme Court · Jun 3, 2019

Through a separate procedure, a person who already has completed his or her sentence for a qualifying felony also may 7  PEOPLE v. … Although the majority opinion does not clearly say so, this is an entirely different argument for 3  PEOPLE v.

In Re Attorney Discipline System

79 Cal. Rptr. 2d 836 · California Supreme Court · Dec 3, 1998

The making of orders of admission is, as already observed, clearly a judicial act of this court. . . . … Licensing ensures that only those qualified to practice a profession are entitled to serve the public.

Morning Star Co. v. State Board of Equalization

42 Cal. Rptr. 3d 47 · California Supreme Court · Apr 24, 2006

it regards as inherent in everyday business activity, such as fluorescent light bulbs, batteries, inks, correction fluid, and toner used in printers and facsimile machines, constitute “hazardous materials,” and that all qualifying … We believe that to remove what would otherwise constitute a regulation from the APA’s scope, the Legislature must speak more clearly than it has here.

In Re Cadwell

15 Cal. 3d 762 · California Supreme Court · Dec 22, 1975

The California Attorney General notified the chapter, which had not been qualified as a charitable institution, that it could not legally continue to operate certain thrift stores and that only an independent charitable organization … [The findings are silent as to what was done with the $2,500, and the record filed with us does not clearly establish where that money ultimately went.]

The People v. Mai

California Supreme Court · Oct 2, 2013

Thomas, or any other qualified mental health expert, ever conducted such tests, and we must thus assume they were not performed. … The record thus fails to establish that Juror No. 12 was a biased juror.

Lamb v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board

11 Cal. 3d 274 · California Supreme Court · Apr 19, 1974

This evidence, which I summarize below, clearly constituted substantial evidence in support of the board's decision. 1. Dr. Winsor — Dr. … While we are not qualified to dispute the aesthetic or epistimological validity of the dictum upon which the Board rests its analogy, we confess to some confusion as to the meaning sought to be conveyed thereby.

People v. Davis

31 Cal. Rptr. 3d 96 · California Supreme Court · Jul 21, 2005

Boyd and Harris murders Testifying under a grant of immunity, DeAndre Brown gave the following account of the murders. … Davis, [f] And in attempting to establish that it was made by Mr.

Davis v. Davis

26 Cal. 23 · California Supreme Court · Jul 15, 1864

thereby became competent as a witness on his own behalf, if he elected so to do ; but if he testified to new matter not responsive to the inquiries put to him by the party who called him, or not necessary to explain or qualify … Justice Bronson, that to constitute an estoppel in pais against a party, there must be, first, an admission which is clearly inconsistent with the evidence which the party proposes to give, or the title or claim wMch he proposes

People v. Turner

37 Cal. 3d 302 · California Supreme Court · Nov 21, 1984

It is well established that blacks and women are constitutionally cognizable classes. … This result clearly violates due process.

Doran v. City & County of San Francisco

44 Cal. 2d 477 · California Supreme Court · Apr 28, 1955

The evidence in this case, viewed reasonably, clearly shows that plaintiffs were totally unaware of any danger. … A cursory examination of that history will show that from its first establishment as a part of our system of law, the jury has had the function of determining facts.

Riverside County Department of Public Social Services v. Randall S.

13 Cal. 4th 196 · California Supreme Court · Apr 22, 1996

The family court is established to provide parents a forum in which to resolve, inter alia, private issues relating to the custody of and visitation with children. … In psychotherapy with a therapist qualified to work with issues such as [father]’s. [f] 2. Father must attend therapy regularly and make satisfactory progress for a time before any visits as determined by his therapist.