Case law

Warner Construction Corp. v. City of Los Angeles

2 Cal. 3d 285 · California Supreme Court · Mar 31, 1970

involve fiduciary or confidential relations, a cause of action for non-disclosure of material facts may arise in at least three instances: (1) the defendant makes representations but does not disclose facts which materially qualify … For an established firm such as Warner Construction Corporation, an award for lost profits could not be criticized as speculative. (See Lucky Auto Supply v. Turner (1966) 244 Cal.App.2d 872, 882 [ 53 Cal.Rptr. 628 ].)

In Re Alvernaz

2 Cal. 4th 924 · California Supreme Court · Jun 22, 1992

Although this decision ultimately is one made by the defendant, it is the attorney, not the client, who is particularly qualified to make an informed evaluation of a proffered plea bargain. … The district attorney presumably knew what the above quoted code section so clearly provides, and would therefore have taken petitioner's proposed nolo plea to his robbery offer as an acceptance of that offer. [6] Moreover

People v. Lang

49 Cal. 3d 991 · California Supreme Court · Dec 7, 1989

Code, § 353 [motion to exclude evidence must clearly state the specific ground of objection].) … To be sure, his testimony on when he formed the intent to steal — as on other matters — was not immune from attack.

People v. Spencer

235 Cal. Rptr. 3d 278 · California Supreme Court · Jul 12, 2018

An informant’s veracity or reliability may be established by her having provided tips that proved true. (See, e.g., Draper v. … “But more importantly,” said Mantell, “there is on the record of this case evidence . . . which establishes very clearly the tertiary position of Chris Spencer in the planning and plotting of this entire operation.”

People v. Ervine

47 Cal. 4th 745 · California Supreme Court · Dec 7, 2009

On appeal, defendant has abandoned his argument that the written statements qualified as spontaneous declarations. … Even if the issue had been preserved, defendant has not clearly shown a basis on which to admit any of his prior written statements under this theory.

People v. Gutierrez

California Supreme Court · May 5, 2014

The text of section 190.5(b) does not clearly indicate whether the statute was intended to make life without parole the presumptive sentence. … But the canon ―is qualified by the proposition that ‗avoidance of a difficulty will not be pressed to the point of disingenuous evasion.‘ ‖ (Rust v. Sullivan (1991) 500 U.S. 173, 191.)

People v. Wiley

9 Cal. 4th 580 · California Supreme Court · Mar 2, 1995

It was the trial court that determined whether those prior convictions qualified as serious felonies within the meaning of section 667(a). ( 173 Cal.App.3d at p. 872 .) … Noting the People’s concession that the sentences *592 served by defendant as a result of his prior convictions “may have overlapped,” the Court of Appeal held that the trial court “was clearly in error in declaring defendant

Amwest Surety Insurance v. Wilson

11 Cal. 4th 1243 · California Supreme Court · Dec 14, 1995

Although no other published case has addressed the precise issue before us, some general propositions are well established. … the judgment but did not join in the lead opinion written by Justice Hinz setting forth the reasoning employed to reach that result, the decision of the Court of Appeal “lacks the concurrence of the required majority of qualified

Reilly v. Superior Court

57 Cal. 4th 641 · California Supreme Court · Aug 19, 2013

The APA, beginning at Government Code section 11340, requires that administrative agency guidelines be adopted according to specific procedures in order to qualify as ―regulation[s].‖ (Gov. Code, § 11340.5, subds. … Read together, the amendment and the legislative statement of the bill‘s purpose indicate the Legislature‘s clearly expressed preference that SVPA commitment petitions be adjudicated on their merits.

Nat. Lawyers Guild etc. v. City of Hayward

9 Cal. 5th 488 · California Supreme Court · May 28, 2020

The California Public Records Act (PRA or Act) establishes a right of public access to government records. … Neither the text of section 6253.9 nor its history permits us to comprehensively catalog what types of processes will or will not qualify as “extraction” within the meaning of the statute, but they do provide some guideposts

Friends of Sierra Madre v. City of Sierra Madre

105 Cal. Rptr. 2d 214 · California Supreme Court · May 2, 2001

After examining the ballot materials and the circumstances in which Ordinance No. 1-97-1 had been placed on the Sierra Madre ballot, the Court of Appeal concluded that the purpose of the measure was clearly and unambiguously … In contrast to the constitutional and statutory obligation to place a properly qualified voter-sponsored initiative on the ballot, here the city council had discretion to do nothing, but opted instead to place the delisting

People v. Henriquez

226 Cal. Rptr. 3d 69 · California Supreme Court · Dec 7, 2017

They [are] literally just kind of walking around [and] not thinking clearly at all.” In a study of 90 spousal homicides, Dr. … He further asked that only the penalty phase jury be “death qualified,” and that “any death qualification be conducted on an individual, sequestered basis.”

Emeric v. Alvarado

64 Cal. 529 · California Supreme Court · Jan 31, 1884

By the treaty of Cordova the independence of the country was established. (United States v. Ritchie, 17 How. 538 .) … Some time in 1822, the authorities of California recognized and gave in their adhesion to the new order of things established in Mexico.

People v. Superior Court (Ghilotti)

119 Cal. Rptr. 2d 1 · California Supreme Court · Apr 25, 2002

“The trier of fact is charged with determining whether the requirements for classification as an SVP have been established ‘beyond a reasonable doubt.’ (§ 6604.) … On the other hand, the SVPA requires both a qualifying mental disorder and a “likelihood]” of reoffense, and the one does not predetermine the other.

Mutual Life Insurance v. City of Los Angeles

50 Cal. 3d 402 · California Supreme Court · Mar 26, 1990

In adopting section 28, the electorate clearly intended to exempt from taxation the income generated by insurers' so-called "passive" investments. (See Consolidated Title Sec. Co. v. … I know of no insurance carrier that qualifies as a church or charity. [5] It now appears that the people must amend section 28 of the Constitution or the Legislature must confine insurance company investments to the traditional

Dabney v. Edwards

5 Cal. 2d 1 · California Supreme Court · Dec 30, 1935

Respondent concedes that had the phrase “for twenty years” been omitted, the lessee’s estate would clearly have been of indeterminate duration. … The right of an undisclosed principal to recover, however, is too well established to be open to question. (Satisfaction Title etc. Co. v. York, 54 Colo. 566 [ 131 Pac. 444 ].)” Judgment is reversed.

People v. Wingo

14 Cal. 3d 169 · California Supreme Court · May 9, 1975

While these intrinsically legislative functions are circumscribed by the constitutional limits of article I, section 17, the validity of enactments will not be questioned “unless their unconstitutionality clearly, positively … But these propositions, valid in the abstract, must be qualified when the maximum term is challenged as disproportionate.

Los Angeles County Pioneer Society v. Historical Society

40 Cal. 2d 852 · California Supreme Court · May 5, 1953

The trial court therefore properly appointed a trustee in the present case. [23] Pioneer contends that Historical is not qualified to act as trustee of the assets. … To my mind, her membership in Pioneer and her gifts to that organization, clearly support the social character of Pioneer.

Adolph Ramish, Inc. v. Woodruff

2 Cal. 2d 190 · California Supreme Court · Dec 29, 1934

following expression: ‘I hereby sell, set over and assign the- within note, . . . and hereby guarantee that this is a good, valid and subsisting promissory note, ’ and that, where such intention existed, the endorsement was qualified … Civil Code and with section 63 of the Negotiable Instruments Law, all of which provide: ‘A person placing his signature upon an instrument otherwise than as maker, drawer or acceptor is deemed to be an endorser, unless he clearly

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of San Francisco County

1 Cal. 5th 783 · California Supreme Court · Aug 29, 2016

Such reciprocity is most clearly maintained by the state taking jurisdiction over disputes arising directly from the defendant’s activities in the state. … Due process restrictions on personal jurisdiction “are more than a guarantee of immunity from inconvenient or distant litigation.