Case law

H. G. Bittleston Law & Collection Agency v. Howard

172 Cal. 357 · California Supreme Court · Mar 18, 1916

This is clearly the equivalent of an averment in the exact language of the section — that "the facts are within the knowledge" of the affiant. … Lang, 78 Cal. 118 , [ 20 P. 297 ], is relied upon by the appellant to establish the insufficiency of the verification here. But we think the case is clearly distinguishable on the facts.

Townsend v. Superior Court

15 Cal. 3d 774 · California Supreme Court · Dec 24, 1975

[Citations.]” *781 In general, it is well established that the power to control judicial proceedings is vested exclusively in counsel. (People v. Kirkpatrick, supra, 7 Cal.3d 480, 486 ; People v. … Defense counsel is undoubtedly well qualified to represent petitioner, and is pursuing his client’s best interests in a competent mánner.

Searcy v. Grow

15 Cal. 117 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1860

In this respect the ruling of the Court was clearly erroneous. … The mere election of Grow did not make him a State officer; until he qualified, he was not to receive anything from the State, or incur to her any responsibility. He made no attempt to hold both offices.

Cartwright v. Board of Chiropractic Examiners

16 Cal. 3d 762 · California Supreme Court · Apr 28, 1976

Code, §§ 1011, 1012) on the ground, inter alia, that the company did not qualify for a certificate of authority (Ins. Code, § 1011, subd. (h) [formerly subd. … established plaintiff’s moral turpitude.

Flores v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board

11 Cal. 3d 171 · California Supreme Court · Apr 11, 1974

insurance or to qualify as self-insurers. … In enacting section 3715, the Legislature did not explicitly repeal the provisions of sections 4554 and 4555 and, of course, our prior cases clearly indicate that all presumptions are against a repeal by implication.

Ward v. Flood

48 Cal. 36 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1874

That Amendment, so far as claimed to be material to the question, is as follows: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States.. … for very young children, it may be that such schools may be kept exclusively by female teachers, quite adequate to their instruction, and yet whose services may be obtained at a cost much lower than that of more highly qualified

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.

Crandall v. Parks

152 Cal. 772 · California Supreme Court · Jan 31, 1908

He was clearly entitled, also, to rely upon the representation as to the ownership of the personal property. Oppenheimer v. Clunie, 142 Cal. 313 , [ 75 Pac. 899 ], is not in point. … However this may be, the evidence in the record was sufficient to warrant a ruling that the witnesses were qualified to testify on the subject.

In Re Estate of Mahoney

133 Cal. 180 · California Supreme Court · Jun 4, 1901

This contention cannot be upheld without a violation of the clearly expressed intention of the legislature. … relates to nieces and nephews, is in conflict with the provisions of section 2, article IV, of the constitution of the United States, providing that the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities

Martinez v. Superior Court

29 Cal. 3d 574 · California Supreme Court · Jun 18, 1981

The Attorney General contends this case does not qualify for either category; he characterizes petitioner as a person “of no particular status,” accused, of murder in a “nondescript” Roseville bar holdup. … A witness testifying for the prosecution under immunity reportedly also stated that defendants had planned the robbery in order to obtain money to buy heroin.

In Re Martin

44 Cal. 3d 1 · California Supreme Court · Nov 9, 1987

The prosecutor had refused Riley’s request for immunity; petitioner then unsuccessfully moved the court to grant immunity. … The prosecution again refused a request for immunity and petitioner again unsuccessfully moved the court for a grant of immunity.

Lauer v. Estes

120 Cal. 652 · California Supreme Court · May 18, 1898

The respondent introduced evidence tending to show that he was not a qualified voter because he had not a legal residence at the place where he voted. … This view is very thoroughly established in the report in the case of Cessna v. Meyers, above cited. It does not appear that any illegal votes were counted for appellant.

Beaudreau v. Superior Court

14 Cal. 3d 448 · California Supreme Court · May 29, 1975

A meritorious action against a public entity or public employee clearly connotes a “legitimate claim of entitlement” within the meaning of Roth . … This is clearly not a consideration in the case at bench.

Quesada v. Herb Thyme Farms, Inc.

62 Cal. 4th 298 · California Supreme Court · Dec 3, 2015

These provisions establish federal exclusivity in the affected domains. … Part of the problem was the absence of a clearly defined and accepted meaning for ―organic.‖ (See id. at pp. 80663–80664, 80668.)

Spring Valley Water Works v. Schottler

62 Cal. 69 · California Supreme Court · Nov 16, 1882

This we think abundantly established by the cases above cited. … The words used show clearly that they were intended to add something to what preceded them, to refer to kinds of property not previously mentioned, not to qualify anything.

People v. Oyama

29 Cal. 2d 164 · California Supreme Court · Oct 31, 1946

Since 1935, by appointment of the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of San Diego, Kajiro Oyama has been the duly qualified guardian of the person and estate of Fred Y. Oyama, a minor. … As to Fred Oyama, a citizen, it is argued that the Alien Land Law violates the mandate of the California Constitution that no citizen or class of citizens shall be “granted privileges or immunities which, upon the same terms

A.B.C. Distributing Co. v. City & County of San Francisco

15 Cal. 3d 566 · California Supreme Court · Nov 26, 1975

Under well settled legal principles, immunity from such a general taxing measure must be clearly established [citations]. . . .” (Pp. 474-475, italics added.) … Under well-settled legal principles, immunity from such a general taxing measure must be clearly established [citations]. . . .” (Ainsworth v. Bryant, supra, at p. 475 , italics added.)

People Ex Rel. Department of Transportation v. Naegele Outdoor Advertising Co.

38 Cal. 3d 509 · California Supreme Court · May 2, 1985

Thus the 1958 law clearly did not grant the states authority to enforce highway beautification provisions on federal lands and reservations. … The court noted that Interior’s authority to administer the laws dealing with federal lands was both well established and “almost plenary.”

People v. Frierson

226 Cal. Rptr. 3d 582 · California Supreme Court · Dec 28, 2017

“[T]he petitioning defendant has the initial burden of establishing eligibility, and if that burden is met, then the prosecution has the opportunity to establish ineligibility on other grounds.” (People v. … As noted, a prospective sentence under the Act could not be an indeterminate life term unless the prosecution establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant qualifies for a third strike term.

People v. Peterson

10 Cal. 5th 409 · California Supreme Court · Aug 24, 2020

But if they oppose the death penalty, they are not qualified under Wainwright [v.] Witt.” … Drawing from the analyses of sister state courts that had wrestled with the same problem, the court identified five points a proponent must establish: “(1) the dog’s handler was qualified by training and experience to use