Case law

People v. Gutierrez

California Supreme Court · Jun 1, 2017

The court did not determine whether defendants established a prima facie case based on gender discrimination. (See People v. … This is important, Your Honor, Gabriel Trevino is going to testify under the immunity agreement in this case.

K.M. v. E.G.

37 Cal. 4th 130 · California Supreme Court · Aug 22, 2005

[K.M.] . . . has failed to establish either that she received the twins into her home or that she held them out ‘as [her] natural child[ren.]’ … The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, ruling that K.M. did not qualify as a parent “because substantial evidence supports the trial court’s factual finding that only E.G. intended to bring about the birth of a child

People v. George T.

16 Cal. Rptr. 3d 61 · California Supreme Court · Jul 22, 2004

Bose held that a federal appellate court should conduct an independent review of a trier of fact’s determination that a defendant acted with “actual malice” in the context of a defamation suit, rather than rely on the clearly-erroneous … Ambiguity, however, is not necessarily sufficient to immunize the poem from being deemed a criminal threat because the surrounding circumstances may clarify facial ambiguity.

White v. Ultramar, Inc.

88 Cal. Rptr. 2d 19 · California Supreme Court · Aug 23, 1999

In some cases, such as Agarwal and the present matter, a supervisory employee with hiring and firing power will qualify as a “managing agent.” … In letters to individual legislators urging them to vote for the bill, the measure’s sponsors represented that the bill “would codify existing case law establishing the liability of employers for the acts of their employees

Pollock v. Tri-Modal Distribution Services, Inc.

California Supreme Court · Jul 26, 2021

In this action, Pollock alleges that Tri-Modal and Kelso denied her a series of promotions even though she was the most qualified candidate, and that her refusal to have sex with Kelso was a substantial factor motivating … Code of Civil Procedure section 1034, subdivision (b) charges the Judicial Council with establishing “allowable costs on appeal and the procedure for claiming those costs.”

People v. Edwards

54 Cal. 3d 787 · California Supreme Court · Nov 25, 1991

The latter clearly was not a request to cover the earlier portions of trial. … The defense established that defendant lived in his truck, and sought to show that he routinely kept his guns there.

People v. McClennegen

195 Cal. 445 · California Supreme Court · Feb 24, 1925

court, can be set aside on appeal upon the ground we are discussing, it must be made clearly to appear that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support the conclusion reached in the court … The italicized words, excepting the word knowingly, which is taken out of the order in which it appears in the act and so placed as to qualify “became” as well as “were,” are words supplied by the pleader, and the meaning

People v. Loker

44 Cal. 4th 691 · California Supreme Court · Jul 28, 2008

“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. … In any event, to the extent these remarks were improper, they were clearly not prejudicial.

People v. Bankston

California Supreme Court · Jun 1, 2026

Counsel clearly stated, and Bankston confirmed at length, that Bankston sought to represent himself. … BANKSTON Liu, J., concurring Bankston to a predatory animal clearly violated the RJA.

People v. Davis

7 Cal. 4th 797 · California Supreme Court · May 16, 1994

Smith court noted a mother’s constitutional right to abort the fetus during the first trimester of gestation and her qualified right to do so during the second trimester, and observed that until viability, the state has no … The court then determined that the definition of viability has been well established. Relying on R.P.

Kim v. Toyota Motor Corp.

237 Cal. Rptr. 3d 205 · California Supreme Court · Aug 27, 2018

But although counsel may argue that industry standards “can and should be more stringent,” “[e]vidence that all product designers in the industry balance the competing factors in a particular way clearly is relevant to the … In markedly qualified language we are instructed that now, industry custom-and-practice evidence offered by a defendant in a design defect case “may, depending on the circumstances, be admissible.”

People v. Stritzinger

34 Cal. 3d 505 · California Supreme Court · Sep 1, 1983

This contention is without merit, and Rojas is clearly distinguishable. … It was not necessary to establish this infirmity by the testimony of a physician.

Johnson v. Ford Motor Co.

29 Cal. Rptr. 3d 401 · California Supreme Court · Jun 16, 2005

As might be expected, defendant has taken a very narrow view of what qualifies as a "lemon." It has also attempted to avoid laws requiring notification of defects to *420 future buyers. … The court concluded that "the evidence clearly supports an inference that defendant's entire customer response program was structured precisely to short-circuit lemon law claims whenever defendant plausibly could."

People v. Cruz

44 Cal. 4th 636 · California Supreme Court · Jul 24, 2008

Defendant’s arrest clearly was recorded in official police records prior to his being transported from the Burney substation toward Redding; hence that fact itself establishes that he was technically “booked” on the section … All of those elements are established on this record.

State Department of Public Health v. Superior Court

60 Cal. 4th 940 · California Supreme Court · Feb 19, 2015

The exceptions include, among other things, referrals of patients or residents between qualified professionals, disclosure to approved researchers who sign an oath of confidentiality, disclosure ―[t]o the courts, as necessary … The rules we must apply when faced with two irreconcilable statutes are well established.

Brosnahan v. Brown

32 Cal. 3d 236 · California Supreme Court · Sep 2, 1982

"`The majority of qualified electors are so much interested in managing their own affairs that they have no time carefully to consider measures affecting the general public. … GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN Attorney General Why is it that the Legislature doesn't start getting serious about a problem until we, the people, go out and qualify an initiative?

People v. Pinholster

1 Cal. 4th 865 · California Supreme Court · Feb 20, 1992

He fails to establish that the evidence was inadmissible. … Clark, supra, 50 Cal.3d at page 624, that the statutory language itself clearly states this concept.

Bernhard v. Wall

184 Cal. 612 · California Supreme Court · Jan 4, 1921

It is the making of a filing which establishes the status of the applicant and gives him preference over subsequent filings, unless his filing is abandoned. … It is, therefore, clearly apparent that so far as third persons are concerned, who acted without knowledge of his offer and paid money for the land on the faith of the record title, the plaintiff has no prior equity.

In re Boyette

56 Cal. 4th 866 · California Supreme Court · May 30, 2013

“Clearly, the question was not limited to convictions, since it not only used the word ‘accused,’ but also added the phrase, ‘even if the case did not come to court.’ … Clearly question No. 25 asked jurors such as Ary to disclose their criminal history.

People v. Disbrow

16 Cal. 3d 101 · California Supreme Court · Feb 6, 1976

I cannot join the present majority in their sudden and disquieting deviation from the clearly applicable decision of the United States Supreme Court in Harris v. … Professor Kaplan notes that neither Miranda nor the exclusionaiy rule itself are constitutional doctrine, but rather attempts to “protect values established in the Constitution.”