Case law

People v. Yeager

194 Cal. 452 · California Supreme Court · Sep 22, 1924

If the jury so believed, then a conspiracy was established, for the passing of the weapon would constitute an overt act. … Bailey, district attorney of Madera County, told appellant he did not have to answer the questions, that they must ibe free and voluntary answers, and that he would get no reward or immunity if answers were made.

Kloepfer v. Commission on Judicial Performance

49 Cal. 3d 826 · California Supreme Court · Nov 27, 1989

The special masters had concluded that wilful misconduct was established by the evidence. E. … However, the record does not establish misconduct in a wilful refusal to obey the writ.

In Re Marriage of Epstein

24 Cal. 3d 76 · California Supreme Court · Apr 12, 1979

See (1966) 64 Cal.2d 778 [ 51 Cal.Rptr. 888 , 415 P.2d 776 ] established a presumption that, unless an agreement between the parties specifies that the contributing party be reimbursed,' a party who utilizes his separate … Although she had earned a Bachelor of Arts degree and expressed a willingness to seek employment, she would need to undertake considerable training before she would be qualified to compete in the job market.

Alameda County Deputy etc. v. Alameda County Employees' etc.

California Supreme Court · Jul 30, 2020

Once an employee has become qualified to receive a pension by satisfying this minimum service requirement, he or she is said to be “vested” with respect to the receipt of a pension. … Plainly, however, the recognition that pension benefits are not immune from change does not grant carte blanche to the Legislature.

Emeric v. Alvarado

90 Cal. 444 · California Supreme Court · Aug 7, 1891

made of the record of the deed, the notice necessarily results by operation of law; *473 but not so upon proof of the possession, for the possession may be taken and held in such various modes, and accompanied by so many qualified … Such matters are within the discretion of the lower court, and this court will not interfere, when such discretion has not been clearly abused. We see no such abuse of discretion here.

People v. Carter

36 Cal. 4th 1215 · California Supreme Court · Aug 15, 2005

The prosecution was vigorous in its cross-examination and summation, and in interposing objections (most of which clearly were well-founded). … Ellana] is a very qualified person for her particular occupation, but that doesn’t mean that she is automatically an expert who is . . . appropriate for this particular case.

People v. Griffin

15 Cal. Rptr. 3d 743 · California Supreme Court · Jul 19, 2004

Other evidence could, and did, depict Kelly’s body at the crime scene, but none as clearly or as powerfully as this exhibit. … Ortiz , however, is clearly distinguishable.

In Re Blaney

30 Cal. 2d 643 · California Supreme Court · Oct 3, 1947

167 A.L.R. 675 ], it was definitely recognized that the constitutionally protected right of free speech is not an absolute right; that the right does not carry with it into the conduct of businesses and professions total immunity … The act is therefore clearly expressive of both the legislative and the popular determination.

People v. Brigham

25 Cal. 3d 283 · California Supreme Court · Sep 7, 1979

Perhaps more importantly, by limiting the jury’s review to “the evidence” it implies that a doubt not arising from that source cannot qualify as reasonable. … understand the first sentence in it, viz.: ‘The defendant’s guilt must be established beyond a reasonable doubt.’

State Personnel Board v. Fair Employment & Housing Commission

39 Cal. 3d 422 · California Supreme Court · Aug 8, 1985

The Act clearly manifests an intent to include both public and private employers within its scope. … None of the three applicants for state employment in the instant case qualifies as a person with a "physical handicap" as defined by the Legislature. (Gov. Code, § 12926, subd. (h).)

Estate of Emerson

175 Cal. 724 · California Supreme Court · Aug 15, 1917

He qualified and acted. Thereafter he sought, under section 1339 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to procure the probate of a will of his brother which *725 he averred was destroyed after his death. … This review of the evidence serves to establish the nature of the claims and demands which the special administrator declared existed against his brother and which form the basis of the settlement of their open account, dating

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

Small v. Fritz Companies, Inc.

132 Cal. Rptr. 2d 490 · California Supreme Court · Apr 7, 2003

But “though the fact of damage must be clearly established, the amount need not be proved with the same degree of certainty but may be left to reasonable approximation or inference. … That remedy should not be so hedged and qualified that only a fraction of those actually injured would be able to gain redress.

Batson v. Strehlow

68 Cal. 2d 662 · California Supreme Court · Jun 3, 1968

a legislative intent to include as persons entitled to receive commissions in probate sales only those who qualify as bona fide agents or brokers. … However, as we point out above, plaintiff did not have knowledge of material facts relative to defendant’s dual capacity which, standing alone, are sufficient to establish breach' of his obligation to disclose and as to which

Wells Fargo Bank v. Superior Court

53 Cal. 3d 1082 · California Supreme Court · Jun 27, 1991

The no-delegation rule is well established. … But the general language in Paragraph Sixth is qualified by the more specific, restrictive language in Paragraph Fifth, that officers be dismissed by the board of directors.

People v. Woods

88 Cal. Rptr. 2d 88 · California Supreme Court · Aug 26, 1999

Bravo (1987) 43 Cal.3d 600, 610-611 , 238 Cal.Rptr. 282 , 738 P.2d 336 ( Bravo ) and was not clearly overruled by Whren v. United States (1996) 517 U.S. 806 , 116 S.Ct. 1769 , 135 L.Ed.2d 89 ( Whren ). … This evidence then may be used to establish probable cause to obtain a criminal search warrant....

Pacific Telephone Etc. Co. v. Eshleman

166 Cal. 640 · California Supreme Court · Dec 20, 1913

Upon this commission was conferred specified powers in the establishment of rates-and charges for transportation companies. … commission having control of the public utilities of the state, and has authorized the legislature to confer upon that commission such powers as it may see fit, even to the destruction of the safeguards, privileges, and immunities

People v. Johnson

241 Cal. Rptr. 3d 782 · California Supreme Court · Dec 27, 2018

And defendant himself concedes that his attack on Hauser was "clearly the primary reason" for excluding him from the trial. … And I want that placed clearly in the record because I carefully observed that. And that is my considered evaluation of the matter.

People v. Lopez

56 Cal. 4th 1028 · California Supreme Court · Jun 13, 2013

These records established that defendant called his family‟s residence from custody but did not establish to whom he spoke. Patty Lopez‟s testimony was not cumulative of other evidence. … The presence of motive is a circumstance that may establish guilt. (People v. Estep (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 733, 738.)

Rattagan v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

California Supreme Court · Aug 22, 2024

1 The answer to the question is a qualified yes. … The court concluded the economic loss rule doomed Sheen’s tortious negligence cause of action because “it is based on an asserted duty that is contrary to the rights and obligations clearly expressed in the loan contract.