Case law

Kimmel v. Goland

51 Cal. 3d 202 · California Supreme Court · Jul 12, 1990

Clark, supra, 38 Cal.3d 355 , for the proposition that section 47(2) immunizes them from liability. … To the extent the complaint rests on Farnell's alleged communicative acts of "counseling" and "advising" his clients, the privilege is clearly operative. (See Silberg v. Anderson (1990) 50 Cal.3d 205 [ 266 Cal.

People v. McGee

42 Cal. Rptr. 3d 899 · California Supreme Court · May 22, 2006

That subdivision clearly narrows, rather than expands, the jury’s role. … United States, supra, 526 U.S. 227 [ 143 L.Ed.2d 311 , 119 S.Ct. 1215 ]] and Apprendi , to say that Almendarez-Torres clearly authorizes a judge to resolve the dispute.

Hard v. County of Plumas

35 Cal. 2d 577 · California Supreme Court · Jun 29, 1950

Comprehensive regulations are established for the registration or licensing of persons practicing civil engineering. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6700 et seq.) … refraining from adopting such requirement, it is pertinent that, although the licensing act refers to persons engaged in a public or private capacity, it was adopted prior to section 2006 of the Streets and Highways Code which clearly

Milgate v. Wraith

19 Cal. 2d 297 · California Supreme Court · Jan 21, 1942

If the statutes were identical and if the law were clearly established in New York, the opinion would have considerable persuasive force, but such is not the case. … S. 783, 785, stated the problem thus: ‘But, in abrogating the common-law rule of non-liability where the car is not operated in the owner’s service, does the statute destroy both immunities or but one ?

People v. Bowley

59 Cal. 2d 855 · California Supreme Court · Jun 18, 1963

The requirement is based on the theory that accomplice testimony comes from a tainted source, is usually given in the hope or expectation of lenience or immunity, is untrustworthy, and should be viewed with caution. ’ ’ The … For a photograph to qualify for admission into evidence the source of the authentication is immaterial.

People v. Coffey

161 Cal. 433 · California Supreme Court · Dec 1, 1911

But in either case the accidental circumstances clearly do not affect the definition of an accomplice. … It thus being established that Gallagher was clearly an accomplice, the equally important question remains whether or not his testimony was corroborated.

People ex rel. Kimberly v. De La Guerra

40 Cal. 311 · California Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1870

“This treaty is the law of the land, and admits the inhabitants of Florida to the enjoyment of the privileges, rights and immunities of the citizens of the United States.’ … Tbe respondent is clearly a citizen of tbe United States, and tbe judgment should be affirmed. So ordered. By Erodes, C. J.: I concur in tbe judgment. Sprague, J., expressed no opinion.

Standard Oil Co. v. Johnson

19 Cal. 2d 104 · California Supreme Court · Nov 29, 1941

(Thq latter are organized within the navy in the same manner and for the same purpose as post exchanges are established in the army.) … removes the immunity from taxes on sales made within a federal area. (54 U.

People v. Foster

251 Cal. Rptr. 3d 312 · California Supreme Court · Aug 22, 2019

We found it "significant" that "subdivisions (a) and (f) of section 1170.18 both clearly reflect an intent to have full retroactive application, whereas subdivision (k) uses no similar language." ( Id. at pp. 880, 881, 236 … The distinctive structure of the commitment statute at issue in Bevill has no parallel here, and that **234 case did not establish a rule applicable in Foster's case.

Williams v. Horvath

16 Cal. 3d 834 · California Supreme Court · May 4, 1976

Section 825 permits the employing entity to reserve the right to refuse to pay a judgment until it is established that the employee’s acts were in fact within the scope of employment. (See also Gov. Code, § 995 et seq.) … The former interpretation is clearly inaccurate and inapplicable to the present case.

Rodgers v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

36 Cal. 3d 330 · California Supreme Court · Jul 5, 1984

concurrent negligence of his employer and the third party, and our opinion specifically noted that “[a]s no allegations of employee negligence appear on the face of this record, we do not decide here how such negligence, if established … Since section 3861 does not explicitly limit or qualify the employer’s right to a credit in any way, an employer could at least as plausibly maintain that the “threshold” formula adopted in Associated Construction and applied

People v. Jenkins

10 Cal. 4th 234 · California Supreme Court · May 18, 1995

The italicized language referring to a term established by any other “section of law” clearly includes the 15-year minimum term provided under section 190. … establish that a murderer must be sentenced under this statute to the exclusion of any other sentencing scheme.

Muzzy Ranch Co. v. Solano County Airport Land Use Commission

41 Cal. 4th 372 · California Supreme Court · Jun 21, 2007

Thus, no California locality is immune from the legal and practical necessity to expand housing due to increasing population pressures. … In interpreting CEQA, we accord the CEQA Guidelines great weight except where they are clearly unauthorized or erroneous. (Citizens of Goleta Valley v.

In re the Estate of Pina

112 Cal. 14 · California Supreme Court · Mar 24, 1896

Subsequently the executor resigned his trust without having closed the administration of the estate, and thereafter, in 1891, *15 an administrator with the will annexed was appointed and qualified. … The evidence clearly tended to establish the existence of property of the estate; and that it had ever been fully administered was not even pretended.

In Re Nicholas H.

120 Cal. Rptr. 2d 146 · California Supreme Court · Jul 17, 2002

Steven qualified under Civil Code former section 7004, subdivision (a)(4) (now Fam. … Such being the case, subdivision (b) of that statute was clearly controlling: `The presumption [that a man is the natural father of a child] is rebutted by a court decree establishing paternity of the child by another man

Hancock v. Watson

18 Cal. 137 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1861

They contend that the words “ formerly owned,” etc., refer to and qualify the word “ interest,” and cannot be regarded as descriptive of the mill and lode. … The rule in relation to the admissibility of extrinsic evidence in such cases was clearly and accurately stated by Parke, B. in Shore v.

Morrison v. Smith Bros., Inc.

211 Cal. 36 · California Supreme Court · Nov 3, 1930

Such a corporation is clearly a public corporation within the meaning of section 284 of the Civil Code. … In 1911, article XI, section 19, of the Constitution was amended to read, in part, as follows: “Any municipal corporation may establish and operate public works for supplying its inhabitants with light, water, power, heat

People v. Miranda

96 Cal. Rptr. 2d 758 · California Supreme Court · Jun 15, 2000

We conclude that the testimony was admissible for the limited purpose of establishing probable cause to hold defendant for trial. … defense witnesses to rebut or qualify that testimony.

Mark v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.

7 Cal. 3d 170 · California Supreme Court · May 17, 1972

California has quite clearly adopted this distinction and imposed a duty to exercise reasonable care toward known licensees or trespassers so far as active operations are concerned.’ ” (P. 774.) … We then explained that the classifications of trespasser, licensee and invitee, the immunities from liability predicated upon those classifications, and the exceptions to those immunities (such as the active negligence rule

Sommer v. Metal Trades Council

40 Cal. 2d 392 · California Supreme Court · Mar 10, 1953

If the union activity here involved is not protected under the federal act it is not immunized from state action. … That it may is clearly indicated by the language of the statute.