Case law

People v. Heard

4 Cal. Rptr. 3d 131 · California Supreme Court · Aug 28, 2003

In sum, the photographs clearly satisfied the relevancy requirement embodied in Evidence Code section 210. … It is evidence which by itself, if found to be true, establishes a fact.

People v. Slaughter

120 Cal. Rptr. 2d 477 · California Supreme Court · May 30, 2002

It was not required that the corroborative evidence establish every element of the crime. E. … Wrest, supra, 3 Cal.4th 1088, 1107 , in which we clearly condemned the practice of making such biblical references.

Purdy & Fitzpatrick v. State of California

71 Cal. 2d 566 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1969

the United States for the purpose of performing skilled or unskilled labor shall be excluded unless the Secretary of Labor certifies that there axe not “(A) sufficient workers in the United States who are able, willing, qualified … discrimination for its own sake; and if the state sought truly effective protection-against alien economic competition by extending a prohibition of limitation against all types of alien employment, such a scheme would clearly

In Re Marriage of Stenquist

21 Cal. 3d 779 · California Supreme Court · Aug 7, 1978

Under federal law, a veteran who has qualified for both may receive only one. … Limitations on the applicability of community property principles to retirement pensions have also been established.

People v. Wells

2 Cal. 198 · California Supreme Court · Apr 15, 1852

Here it is admitted that there is a proper officer, elected and qualified to discharge the duties of the office, whose right, if present, would be undisputed. How, then, can the office be said to be vacant ? … So our Constitution has established the same rule; and by law, our Supreme Judges are required to reside in the State.

People v. Gentile

272 Cal. Rptr. 3d 814 · California Supreme Court · Dec 17, 2020

(a)(1)) — the crime that Gentile is alleged to have aided and abetted — is a qualifying felony for felony murder purposes. … Against this backdrop, if the Legislature had intended section 1170.95 to apply only to defendants whose convictions had become final, we would expect the Legislature to have clearly said so.

Isenberg v. Sherman

212 Cal. 454 · California Supreme Court · Apr 30, 1931

It was Humburg and Hagens who fixed this price, and they certainly were qualified to pass upon the value of the company. … This was clearly illustrated by the ease of Miller v. Kaliwerke, etc., 283 Fed. 746 .

Dr. Leevil, LLC v. Westlake Health Care Center

241 Cal. Rptr. 3d 12 · California Supreme Court · Dec 17, 2018

Since it is purely statutory in nature, it is essential that a party seeking the remedy bring himself clearly within the statute.” (Baugh v. Consumers Associates, Ltd. (1966) 241 Cal.App.2d 672, 674.) Because Dr. … Orcilla and the cases on which it relies establish only that Westlake Health could use the unlawful detainer action to litigate whether Dr.

People v. Alfaro

63 Cal. Rptr. 3d 433 · California Supreme Court · Aug 6, 2007

Defendant contends that the discussion between the trial court and defense counsel clearly establishes that defendant sought to enter an unconditional plea. … This contention clearly is belied by the record.

Carsten v. Psychology Examining Committee

27 Cal. 3d 793 · California Supreme Court · Aug 7, 1980

But, urges petitioner, there are exceptions to the foregoing rule for property owners, taxpayers and voters, and she qualifies under the exceptions. … A firmly established series of cases has held that petitioner's standing to pursue her remedy is based on a generally recognized right and not on any exception that need be drawn in her case.

In Re Baby Girl M.

37 Cal. 3d 65 · California Supreme Court · Oct 22, 1984

Both would qualify in California as presumed fathers, entitled to custody. Both had taken the affirmative steps necessary to assume parental responsibilities. By contrast, in Quilloin v. … The natural father also filed an action in another county to establish visitation and paternal rights.

People v. Barrett

54 Cal. 4th 1081 · California Supreme Court · Jul 30, 2012

Code, § 2960 et seq. have qualified rights similar to some LPS Act patients to refuse antipsychotic drugs].) … California was not immune to the eugenics theories underlying the Virginia legislation at issue in Buck v. Bell. Indeed, by some accounts, California was a pioneer.

People v. Rodriguez

58 Cal. 4th 587 · California Supreme Court · Feb 20, 2014

Castellano] would have been very qualified. I know that Dr. Vicary is very well qualified.” … “A person is qualified to testify as an expert if he has special knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education sufficient to qualify him as an expert on the subject to which his testimony relates.” (Evid.

People v. Avena

13 Cal. 4th 394 · California Supreme Court · Jun 10, 1996

Superior Court, supra, 28 Cal.3d at pages 71-75, requiring sequestered voir dire due to the potential bias that may result from the process of death-qualifying prospective jurors. (See People v. … Second, even assuming the trial court understood the prosecutor as clearly supporting the instruction at one point, this fact is not relevant.

Civil Service Assn. v. City & County of San Francisco

22 Cal. 3d 552 · California Supreme Court · Oct 26, 1978

Supreme Court speaking through Justice Brennan stated ( 420 U.S. 260 -263 [ 43 L.Ed.2d 179 -181]): "The action of an employee in seeking to have the assistance of his union representative at a confrontation with his employer clearly … Yet Skelly established the principle that, absent an emergency, notice and an opportunity to respond must precede termination; the same principle should apply in suspension cases.

People v. Battle

11 Cal. 5th 749 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 2021

We may also consider nondiscriminatory reasons for the challenged strikes that are “apparent from and ‘clearly established’ in the record.” (Ibid.) … established’ in the record.”

People v. Alvarez

California Supreme Court · Aug 18, 2025

) “ ‘ “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. … In order to cross-examine him on the topic, the prosecutor offered to grant Alvarez immunity from prosecution for contempt.

People v. Zamora

18 Cal. 3d 538 · California Supreme Court · Dec 16, 1976

The lead was pursued and in June Hanak was offered immunity from prosecution in exchange for his testimony. … This is not a case in which a connection between a fire and possible insurance fraud was clearly lacking.

People v. Souza

54 Cal. 4th 90 · California Supreme Court · May 31, 2012

When Nelson looked out the window, he saw a car drive away approximately one minute after the shooting stopped, seeing it clearly when it drove under a street light. … Nevertheless, the claim may be waived under the doctrine of invited error if trial counsel both ― ‗intentionally caused the trial court to err‘ ‖ and clearly did so for tactical reasons.

People v. Thompson

1 Cal. 5th 1043 · California Supreme Court · Dec 1, 2016

This latter exception is well established (see People v. Ramos (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1133, 1171; see generally People v. … Of course, ―uncharged conduct may be relevant to establish . . . motive.‖ (Id. at p. 402, fn. 6.)