Case law

People v. Welch

85 Cal. Rptr. 2d 203 · California Supreme Court · Jun 1, 1999

Second, he must establish that the persons excluded are members of a cognizable group .... … Here, defendant’s remarks were clearly relevant to the context in which Utvick’s assault occurred. B.

In Re Buckley

10 Cal. 3d 237 · California Supreme Court · Oct 19, 1973

He was therefore clearly entitled to as much latitude in conducting his defense as we have held is enjoyed by counsel vigorously espousing a client’s cause. In re McConnell (1962) 370 U.S. 230 . … Section 1209 establishes a list of acts or omissions which may constitute contempt of court, including “1.

Smith v. Westland Life Insurance

15 Cal. 3d 111 · California Supreme Court · Aug 28, 1975

However, application of strict contract principles, relied upon by the trial court in the case at bench, to the effect that a qualified acceptance constitutes a rejection of the original offer (Civ. … While the court found that the language of the application and receipt clearly made *123 company approval a condition precedent to the insurer’s full liability under the policy, the court nevertheless ruled that the company

Della Penna v. Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc.

11 Cal. 4th 376 · California Supreme Court · Oct 12, 1995

[Dealer] agrees to abide by any export policy established by [distributor]." … L.Rev. at p. 337), neither can it be a principle of law that immunity is invariably proper. In view of the foregoing, the only reasonable choice is reformulation.

People v. Seumanu

61 Cal. 4th 1293 · California Supreme Court · Aug 24, 2015

Superior Court (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1046, 1069, fn. 13 [having district attorney testify why he offered witness immunity ―may well raise‖ a meritorious vouching claim]). … Backers quite clearly stated defense counsel “knows Paki is the shooter.

People v. Bruner

9 Cal. 4th 1178 · California Supreme Court · May 4, 1995

Under the Joyner test, defendant could not qualify for presentence credit absent proof that his cocaine possession was the sole cause of his confinement before February 2, 1992. … “Although the word ‘exclusively’ does not appear, it is clearly provided that credit is to be given ‘only where’ custody is related to the ‘same conduct for which the defendant has been convicted.’

Delgado v. Trax Bar & Grill

30 Cal. Rptr. 3d 145 · California Supreme Court · Jun 30, 2005

Indeed, the record clearly establishes the existence of such a minimally burdensome duty here. … Although no segment of our community is immune from violent crime, it is generally more prevalent in *172 less affluent areas.

People v. Solomon

49 Cal. 4th 792 · California Supreme Court · Jul 15, 2010

Our task in deciding a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is a well-established one. … Motive The court instructed the jury that “presence of motive may tend to establish guilt. Absence of motive may tend to establish innocence.” (CALJIC No. 2.51 (5th ed. 1988).)

People v. Barrett

California Supreme Court · Jun 23, 2025

and the principal facts that purportedly establish it does not justify the prosecution’s introduction of new evidence to establish that which defendant would clearly have denied from the start.” (People v. … However, I don’t think the record clearly reflected what we were objecting to, and I’m making that note for now.”

People v. Pineda

California Supreme Court · Jun 27, 2022

And following the trial court’s explanation regarding why a witness might be granted immunity from prosecution, J.W. said he had “no problem” with the idea of granting immunity to someone who might then serve as a witness … The foregoing facts establish that there was no meaningful penalty phase error as to this evidence.

People v. Thornton

11 Cal. 3d 738 · California Supreme Court · Jun 21, 1974

Clearly it was within the proper province of the jury to draw or refuse to draw the indicated inference. … The adaptation was proper in the circumstances and the instruction as given was clearly correct.

Powers v. City of Richmond

10 Cal. 4th 85 · California Supreme Court · May 8, 1995

The first category is clearly inapposite: The statute precluding appeal of contempt judgments conforms to the *180 well-established rule, which predated the 1879 Constitution by almost 30 years, that judgments of contempt … In addition, when other states amended their various provisions that had previously failed to clearly establish the appellate jurisdiction of the state's highest court (see ante, fn. 9), they did so in a manner that granted

People v. Mincey

2 Cal. 4th 408 · California Supreme Court · Apr 6, 1992

There is no legal immunity from conviction for first degree torture murder because the victim happened to be a child. … I thought I made it clear as many ways as I could the prosecution clearly believes and expects you to believe that Sandra . . . was involved in this beating.

People v. Mendoza

98 Cal. Rptr. 2d 431 · California Supreme Court · Jul 31, 2000

Clearly he entered [The Lord’s Church] with the intent to commit theft, he admitted that to his own doctors.” … The Legislature clearly was aware of many of these principles when it enacted section 1157 in 1872.

Mexicali Rose v. Superior Court

1 Cal. 4th 617 · California Supreme Court · Jan 23, 1992

The virtue of a warranty action is that proof of actual negligence is not required, though it must still be established that the injury-producing substance was not within the reasonable expectations of the average consumer … The Alabama court clearly did not reject the plaintiff’s claim, as the majority assert, “because the substance was natural to the food served.” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 631.)

People v. Memro

11 Cal. 4th 786 · California Supreme Court · Nov 30, 1995

Rather, it found that they were destroyed in good faith according to established procedure. b. … ‘The burden is on the party seeking severance to clearly establish that there is a substantial danger of prejudice requiring that the charges be separately tried.’

People v. Schader

71 Cal. 2d 761 · California Supreme Court · Aug 20, 1969

It may be directed to the eliciting of any matter which may tend to overcome or qualify the effect of the testimony given by him on direct examination.” (People v. … This conclusion inevitably follows from the rule established in Do-rado.”

State v. Altus Finance, S.A.

32 Cal. Rptr. 3d 498 · California Supreme Court · Aug 15, 2005

The Attorney General intervened in the qui tam action, which was subsequently removed by defendants to federal court based on the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 United States Code sections 1330 , 1602 et seq., and consolidated … As recounted by the district court in this case, these proceeds were not transferred to the state’s General Fund, but rather were initially invested in an escrow account established by the Commissioner, and were ultimately

Baker v. Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority

39 Cal. 3d 862 · California Supreme Court · Sep 23, 1985

Clearly, in cases of physical invasion an inverse condemnation action is appropriate. ( Marina Plaza v. California Coastal Zone Conservation Com. (1977) 73 Cal. App.3d 311, 325 [ 140 Cal. … In Nestle we held, inter alia, that a nuisance action based on airport noise was improperly dismissed on the basis of government immunity, and suggested that the plaintiffs on remand might be able to demonstrate a continuing

Gentry v. Superior Court

64 Cal. Rptr. 3d 773 · California Supreme Court · Aug 30, 2007

Our discussion of Gilmer clearly does not apply to the much more modest awards generally available in overtime compensation cases. … But it does mean that the agreement is not immune from judicial scrutiny to determine whether or not its terms are so one-sided or oppressive as to be substantively unconscionable.