Case law

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.”

People v. Cunningham

108 Cal. Rptr. 2d 291 · California Supreme Court · Aug 15, 2001

Nonetheless, the burden is on the party seeking severance to establish clearly that a substantial danger of prejudice exists requiring that the charges be tried separately. (People v. … On the present record, we cannot find that defense counsel’s admission of the assault conviction that clearly was established, while questioning the proof of the more serious prior murder conviction, did not fall within the

Williams v. Chino Valley Independent Fire District

61 Cal. 4th 97 · California Supreme Court · May 4, 2015

The Christiansburg court approved ―the concept embodied in the language adopted by these two Courts of Appeals,‖ qualifying that language ―only by pointing out that the term ‗meritless‘ is to be understood as meaning groundless … In part I of the discussion, ante, we determined Government Code section 12965(b) established such an express exception from Code of Civil Procedure section 1032(b)‘s mandate for the award of costs.

People v. Lam Thanh Nguyen

61 Cal. 4th 1015 · California Supreme Court · Aug 13, 2015

Defendant is incorrect that the evidence established self-defense as a matter of law. “ ‘[WJhere the evidence is uncontroverted and establishes all of the elements for a finding of self-defense it may be held as a matter … You have established clearly for the jury that on the 25th of May he did not make an identification. ... So, Pm asking [for] a cease fire at this point. I don’t think we’re going to do anything worthwhile.

Cope v. Davison

30 Cal. 2d 193 · California Supreme Court · May 29, 1947

The court was also asked to give several instructions qualifying the necessary knowledge of probable injury to the guest by the participial adjectives “express or implied” and the words “express or implied” were stricken … To my mind this instruction is clearly erroneous.

People v. Castro

38 Cal. 3d 301 · California Supreme Court · Mar 11, 1985

Beagle (1972) 6 Cal.3d 441 [ 99 Cal.Rptr. 313 , 492 P.2d 1 ], held that section 788 of the Evidence Code was immune to the exercise of discretion under section 352. 5 In Beagle we confirmed that section 352 did, indeed, apply … Although Beagle made it clear that we did not intend to establish rigid standards to govern the exercise of discretion, the opinion did rely on Gordon v.

Robert L. v. Superior Court

135 Cal. Rptr. 2d 30 · California Supreme Court · Aug 20, 2003

But the electorate clearly did not intend this result. Instead, the electorate intended that section 186.22(d) increase the punishment for gang-related misdemeanors. 21 4. … This subdivision, like section 186.22, subdivision (g), is not qualified in any manner.

People v. Stanistreet

127 Cal. Rptr. 2d 633 · California Supreme Court · Dec 5, 2002

On the other hand, as the Senate committee report noted, the Penal Code also requires that every department or agency that “employs peace officers shall establish a procedure to investigate complaints by members of the public … They belong to that category of utterances which ‘are no essential part of any exposition of *505 ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed

Colton v. Stanford

82 Cal. 351 · California Supreme Court · Jan 2, 1890

If the cestui que trust clearly discharges the trustee from the trust, and considers him as an indifferent person, he may purchase; but it must clearly appear that the purchaser, at the time of the purchase, had shaken off … But where it clearly appears from the evidence that the contract would have been made if the truth had been known, we see no reason why the court may not find the fact and act upon it.

Wilkinson v. United Railroads of San Francisco

195 Cal. 185 · California Supreme Court · Dec 26, 1924

Otto- Jacobsen, who qualified as an expert, judging the comparative distance interurban cars of the type used will go after the brakes are applied and the current reversed, testified that if the car traveled a distance exceeding … In each of these eases it was properly held that the injured party was guilty of contributory negligence, for it was clearly negligence not to wait for the car to go forward in order that the approach of cars on the other

Weekes v. City of Oakland

21 Cal. 3d 386 · California Supreme Court · May 30, 1978

Obviously this ordinance does not qualify for the exemption because it is not based upon the gross receipts of the business. … This is done to qualify employee compensation for the exception of the second paragraph of section 17041.5.

Sebrell v. Los Angeles Railway Corp.

31 Cal. 2d 813 · California Supreme Court · May 4, 1948

It is common knowledge that instructions, like statutes, may include in addition to a general rule a special rule applicable only in particular circumstances and that the special rule qualifies the general. (See, Civ. … Although in my opinion the instructions could have more clearly stated the principles of law involved, it does not appear that there has been a miscarriage of justice in this case. Shenk, J., concurred. CARTER, J.

Marks v. Superior Court

115 Cal. Rptr. 2d 674 · California Supreme Court · Jan 28, 2002

Clearly, petitioner as a party to tiie appeal had standing to participate in record correction proceedings. Equally clearly, Power, as appellate counsel, had authority to and did appear on his behalf. … Here, the procedures completely short-circuited the established format and effectively eliminated the role of the parties in the process.

People v. Hendricks

44 Cal. 3d 635 · California Supreme Court · Feb 29, 1988

Defendant’s paramour, Annette Stone, under a grant of immunity, testified that prior to the Parmer murder defendant left their motel room, announcing “[h]e was going to find a faggot, knock him over the head, and take his … Second, it is plain that a timely objection and admonition would have cured the harm: as we have explained above, the comment was brief and clearly of minor significance.

People v. Lewis

50 Cal. 3d 262 · California Supreme Court · Mar 1, 1990

Melton (1988) 44 Cal.3d 713, 764-765 [ 244 Cal.Rptr. 867 , 750 P.2d 741 ], that offenses which qualify under both factors (b) and (c) may properly be considered under both. (See also People v. … The prosecutor was merely stating the obvious, but if there were error it clearly was harmless. F. Cumulative Effect of Errors.

People v. Stamps

264 Cal. Rptr. 3d 769 · California Supreme Court · Jun 25, 2020

The policy applies retroactively to all persons who meet the qualifying criteria and are serving a prison sentence for one of those convictions, whether the conviction was by trial or plea. … However, the record does not clearly demonstrate that remand would be futile [citations], and the parties’ plea bargain is not insulated from the changes in the law effected by Senate Bill No. 1393.” (Ellis, at p. 946.)

People v. Caro

248 Cal. Rptr. 3d 96 · California Supreme Court · Jun 13, 2019

She contends the trial court’s failure to make these determinations led to the improper excusal of qualified jurors and produced a biased jury. … But the prosecution established earlier that Xavier reviewed his corporate and personal finances in August 1999, which established a foundation for Xavier’s personal knowledge.

Gin S. Chow v. City of Santa Barbara

217 Cal. 673 · California Supreme Court · Apr 3, 1933

It has. clearly defined the rights of a riparian proprietor in excess waters like those in the present case, and in Horst v. New Blue Point Min. … Commercial & Development Assn., 11 Ariz. 128 [ 89 Pac. 504 ], it was held that the riparian right was not such a vested right as to be immune from statutory change. The holding was affirmed in Boquillas Cattle Co. v.

Peracchi v. Superior Court

135 Cal. Rptr. 2d 639 · California Supreme Court · Jun 23, 2003

II Litigants who establish good cause may disqualify the judge who is assigned to preside over a case. … Further, Maloy contemplated a proceeding in which the trier of fact eventually would resolve the issues without reference to any previous verdict, clearly distinguishing that case from a case involving a resentencing hearing

People v. Padilla

11 Cal. 4th 891 · California Supreme Court · Dec 4, 1995

qualified as overt and was legally and factually sufficient. 5. … I mean that is clearly in the record ... the fact that you gave them.”