Case law

Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Jordan

168 Cal. 270 · California Supreme Court · Jul 28, 1914

This is clearly decided in City of Los Angeles v. Los Angeles Independent Gas Co., 152 Cal. 765, [ 93 Pac. 1006 ]. … In this way, the phrase ‘upon the property above enumerated’ is made fully effective as qualifying both ‘taxes’ and ‘licenses’ preceding it, while no word is either ignored or distorted from its fair meaning.”

People v. Redd

48 Cal. 4th 691 · California Supreme Court · Apr 29, 2010

Jansing also testified that he had received training to qualify him as a peace officer under section 832. … This instruction clearly encompassed the substance of defendant’s proposed instruction.

Stockton Citizens for Sensible Planning v. City of Stockton

48 Cal. 4th 481 · California Supreme Court · Apr 1, 2010

The proposed construction of a Wal-Mart Supercenter on undeveloped urban land clearly was an activity with potential environmental effects. … The NOE thus clearly identified the project as a very large retail store, and was not required to do more in this regard.

Norman v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board

34 Cal. 3d 1 · California Supreme Court · Jun 6, 1983

interpretation of legislative intent. (3) Ordinarily, we give great weight to the interpretation of a statute by the administrative agency empowered to promulgate regulations to advance its purpose unless the interpretation is clearly … an employee's voluntarily leaving the ranks of the employed and joining the ranks of the unemployed; the quitting must be for such a cause as would reasonably motivate in a similar situation the average able-bodied and qualified

People v. Albertson

23 Cal. 2d 550 · California Supreme Court · Jan 19, 1944

The appellant contends that the instruction should have been qualified by the further statement that before this testimony could be considered the jurors must believe, beyond any reasonable doubt, that Albertson committed … The hand of Albertson is clearly seen in the preparation and mailing of the letter in the name of “The Herb Specialty Co.”

People v. McGee

31 Cal. 2d 229 · California Supreme Court · Dec 19, 1947

Therefore, he cannot complain that the "mysterious discrepancy" was not explained. [12] Defendant produced and qualified Dr. Jesse L. Bloch as a medical expert. Dr. … cumulative effect of numerous errors which forces this conclusion, and we reiterate that we are considering the probable effect of such errors upon the jury's determination of guilt in a case where guilt was not firmly established

Katz v. Walkinshaw

64 L.R.A. 236 · California Supreme Court · Nov 28, 1903

The distinction is well established, and, in some respects, different rules of law applied to the two cases. … The plaintiffs, therefore, cannot establish their claims upon the theory of an underground watercourse to which they are riparian.

Amaya v. Home Ice, Fuel & Supply Co.

59 Cal. 2d 295 · California Supreme Court · Mar 12, 1963

It should be pointed out that the California law is not as clearly established as the majority opinion implies. … The main case relied upon by the majority as establishing “existing law” in California is Reed v. Moore, supra, 156 Cal.App.2d 43 .

Crownover v. Musick

9 Cal. 3d 405 · California Supreme Court · May 1, 1973

establishments. … Article 3 Exemption of Theatrical Establishments "Sec. 311.031. Exemption of Theatrical Establishments.

People v. Raybon

California Supreme Court · Aug 12, 2021

Proposition 64 In November 2016, voters enacted Proposition 64, which was intended “to establish a comprehensive system to legalize, control and regulate the cultivation, processing, manufacture, distribution, testing … [a reviewing court should “ ‘not strain to interpret a penal statute in defendant’s favor if it can fairly discern a contrary legislative intent’ ”].)12 12 Although multiple subdivisions of section 11362.45 are clearly

Jones v. Lodge at Torrey Pines Partnership

72 Cal. Rptr. 3d 624 · California Supreme Court · Mar 3, 2008

The Legislature clearly intended to protect employers of less than five from the burdens of litigating discrimination claims. [Citation.] . . . … For these reasons, we concluded “that individuals who do not themselves qualify as employers may not be sued under the FEHA for alleged discriminatory acts.” (Ibid.)

San Diego Cty. Health & Human Serv. Agency v. Otilio L.

22 Cal. 1227 · California Supreme Court · May 22, 2000

She indicated, though not very clearly, that her “Papa” had touched her with his penis. She could not say how the touching had occurred, although she said she had seen her father’s penis. … There is no suggestion in the legislative history that the admission of hearsay contained in social studies is qualified by a “truth incompetence” exception.

People v. Moore

51 Cal. 4th 386 · California Supreme Court · Jan 31, 2011

“The instructions advise the jury to determine what significance, if any, should be given to evidence of consciousness of guilt, and caution that such evidence is not sufficient to establish guilt, thereby clearly implying … The set of special circumstances qualifying a first degree murder for capital sentencing (§ 190.2) is not impermissibly broad. (People v. Dykes (2009) 46 Cal.4th 731, 813 [ 95 Cal.Rptr.3d 78 , 209 P.3d 1 ].)

People v. Mayfield

14 Cal. 4th 668 · California Supreme Court · Jan 2, 1997

The evidence the trial court admitted was clearly inconsistent with this testimony. … This is a matter that is sufficiently beyond common experience that the opinion of a qualified expert could assist the trier of fact.

Fletcher v. Commission on Judicial Performance

81 Cal. Rptr. 2d 58 · California Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1998

After determining that Riegle qualified for representation by the public defender, Fletcher returned to the courtroom with Riegle, informed petitioner that Riegle qualified for representation and had asked her to represent … Petitioner then suggested that Riegle did not qualify for representation, and he asked for a qualification form.

People v. Mendoza

99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 485 · California Supreme Court · Aug 24, 2000

Defendant faults trial counsel for not asking “rehabilitating” questions in an attempt to establish that these particular individuals were qualified to serve as jurors. … Sathyavagiswaran was qualified to testify to the nature of the wounds shown in the photograph of defendant. Contrary to defendant’s assertion, Dr.

People v. Mickel

California Supreme Court · Dec 19, 2016

Defendant is right that the record does not indicate clearly whether the trial court so advised defendant. … Defendant also argued that his planned defense was an ―extremely complex‖ one that required the assistance of ―death-qualified counsel.‖ There is little doubt that defendant comprehended that this was a capital case at the

Daly v. San Bernardino County Bd. of Supervisors

California Supreme Court · Aug 9, 2021

Daly demanded the board adopt a new selection process in which all qualified applicants would have the opportunity for an interview. … But clearly there are exceptions to this ‘rule’ ”).

Suñol v. Hepburn

1 Cal. 254 · California Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1850

It follows from this rule that all possessors ought to be maintained in their possession and enjoymdnt of the thing, until they who trouble them in their possession, prove clearly their right; and if a demand against a possessor … In some instances, as in the case of minors, there may be a qualified capacity to contract, which, when exercised, may, by subsequent acts, he brought to attain the effect of a full capacity.

Lockheed Information Management Services Co. v. City of Inglewood

17 Cal. 4th 170 · California Supreme Court · Jan 8, 1998

Inglewood ... in accordance with [standards] established by [San Diego].” (PSA §§ 1.1.2, 1.1.3.) … By expressly authorizing local agencies, including cities, to contract with other qualified local government agencies for the receipt of municipal services or functions, the statute necessarily furnishes implicit contractual