Case law

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.

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.

People v. Balderas

41 Cal. 3d 144 · California Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1985

Under a grant of immunity, Joseph Hix, a friend of defendant, testified that he and defendant attended a party in Bakersfield on the evening of December 23-24, 1979. … However, with modern communications, “scarcely any of those best qualified to serve as jurors will not have formed some impression or opinion as to the merits of the case.”

Tex-Cal Land Management, Inc. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Board

24 Cal. 3d 335 · California Supreme Court · May 24, 1979

Compliance with an ALRB order sustained by an appellate court is clearly the performance of an act which the law specially enjoins. … If there is an established lunch break, the one-hour period shall include such lunch break. If there is no established lunch break, the one-hour period may be at any time during the working day. "c.

P. ex rel. Harris v. Pac Anchor Transportation, Inc.

California Supreme Court · Jul 28, 2014

Paragraph (3) deals with “Continuation” of “State standard transportation practices,” such as “uniform bills of lading or receipts” and “antitrust immunity for joint line rates . . . .” … Morales, Wolens, Rowe, and Dan’s City each establish when a claim is expressly preempted. (See, e.g., Tanen v. Southwest Airlines Co. (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 1156, 1166-1167.)

People v. Noguera

4 Cal. 4th 599 · California Supreme Court · Dec 28, 1992

Noone told the jury that she had been granted immunity from prosecution by the People. … In the course of the sequestered voir dire proceedings required for the selection of a “death qualified” jury (see Hovey v.

Mangini v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.

7 Cal. 4th 1057 · California Supreme Court · Jun 30, 1994

It stated, “the targeting of minors in cigarette advertising offends public policy as established by statute. … In conducting the “central inquiry” established in Cipollone, we find that this action clearly seeks to impose a requirement or, more specifically, a prohibition under state law with respect to advertising or promoting cigarettes

City of Alhambra v. County of Los Angeles

55 Cal. 4th 707 · California Supreme Court · Nov 19, 2012

Section 97.75 refers to “services” three times, with the latter two qualifying the term as “these services.” … County contends that despite the absence of any express legislative pronouncement concerning the disputed administration fee in enacting the 2004 budgetary measures, the Legislature has, since 1990, clearly and repeatedly

Los Angeles County Department of Adoptions v. Sandara K.

33 Cal. 3d 138 · California Supreme Court · Dec 13, 1982

Indeed, the Department had found a family that was willing and qualified to adopt Elise on that basis. The wife in this family was a substitute teacher at Elise's school. … The fact of nonadoptability is not so clearly a proper subject for judicial notice.

People v. Mattson

50 Cal. 3d 826 · California Supreme Court · May 3, 1990

The jurors who were excused had each *846 expressed clearly an inability or unwillingness to vote for imposition of the death penalty. 7 When a juror has clearly expressed an inability to vote for the death penalty regardless … In Edwards the Supreme Court established another “prophylactic rule” (Michigan v.

City of San Diego v. Neumann

6 Cal. 4th 738 · California Supreme Court · Dec 20, 1993

Yet we clearly drew the distinction in Ocean Shore, supra, 32 Cal.2d 406 . … Thus, we clearly stated that the question of highest and best use is asked only once a larger parcel has been defined on the basis of present use.

Grimm v. Grimm

26 Cal. 2d 173 · California Supreme Court · Mar 27, 1945

clauses in such agreements are not to be construed as including an assignment or renunciation of expectancies and that a beneficiary therefore retains his status under an insurance policy or under a will if it does not clearly … It is an established rule of construction that a proviso or exception is used to limit and qualify that which immediately precedes it and to expressly negative a construction or effect that would prevail in the absence of

Driscoll v. City of Los Angeles

67 Cal. 2d 297 · California Supreme Court · Sep 13, 1967

The record clearly discloses that plaintiffs did not file their written claims with the City and did not commence the present action until more than three years after the deaths of their respective husbands. … effective date of the amendment, it did not determine the effect of the 1925 amendment requiring that the widow shall have been married to the deceased pensioner for at least one year prior to his retirement in order to qualify

Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission

30 Cal. 2d 388 · California Supreme Court · Jun 26, 1947

State, 19 Wn.2d 802 [ 145 P.2d 265, 268 ].) [5] It is an established canon of interpretation that statutes are not to be given a retrospective operation unless it is clearly made to appear that such was the legislative intent … But the time was short and the rule is established that: "But where there is no ambiguity and the interpretation is clearly erroneous, such administrative interpretation does not give legal sanction to a long continued incorrect

Borer v. American Airlines, Inc.

19 Cal. 3d 441 · California Supreme Court · May 6, 1977

Loss of consortium is an intangible, nonpecuniary loss; monetary compensation will not enable plaintiffs to regain the companionship and guidance of a mother; it will simply establish a fund so that upon reaching adulthood … Salem Transportation Company (1972) 61 N.J. 502 [ 295 A.2d 862, 864 , 69 A.L.R.3d 522 ]: “The asserted social need for the disputed cause of action [a child’s action for loss of parental consortium] may well be qualified,

Nickelsberg v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

54 Cal. 3d 288 · California Supreme Court · Aug 30, 1991

Nickelsberg’s argument is contrary to both clear statutory construction and well-established judicial interpretation of sections 5410 and 5804. … In the final analysis, however, we need not decide if Nickelsberg’s disability qualifies as a new and further disability. If it does, his petition would be untimely under section 5410.

People v. Sandoval

4 Cal. 4th 155 · California Supreme Court · Dec 14, 1992

“The burden is on the party seeking severance to clearly establish that there is a substantial danger of prejudice requiring that the charges be separately tried.” (People v. … They were clearly recognizable as an advocate’s hyperbole. (See People v. Poggi, supra, 45 Cal.3d at p. 340.)

People v. Grimes

California Supreme Court · Jan 5, 2015

Bronson‘s testimony supported only the conclusion that death-qualified juries in general tend to be more likely to convict. … Thus, in Gatlin, the declarants‘ exoneration of the defendant clearly did not suggest that the declarants were more culpable.

People v. Boyde

46 Cal. 3d 212 · California Supreme Court · Aug 11, 1988

She indicated that she would not, and that qualified her for excusal under Wainwright v. Witt, supra, 469 U.S. 412 . V. Penalty Phase Error A. Facts. 1. Prosecution Evidence. … The jury was clearly informed that the word “weigh” did not connote mere counting, but rather involves a qualitative judgment.

Consumers Lobby Against Monopolies v. Public Utilities Commission

25 Cal. 3d 891 · California Supreme Court · Dec 6, 1979

; and (4) having allowed for such costs, to award them to qualified public participants." … By adopting section 1021.5, the Legislature clearly, in my view, intended to codify and limit the various equitable doctrines discussed and applied in Serrano and to provide *917 the statutory authorization required by section