Case law

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.

Clark v. Gibbons

66 Cal. 2d 399 · California Supreme Court · Apr 21, 1967

Both the possibility of extending anesthesia and the possibility of further surgery are clearly major factors which should have been considered by a surgeon confronted with inadequate anesthesia. … (Ante, p. 413.)plaintiffs who cannot qualify under Quintal by obtaining such proof are thus relegated to the basic rule of Siverson that res ipsa is applicable only if common knowledge or expert witnesses establish that accidents

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

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.

Segal v. ASICS America Corp.

California Supreme Court · Jan 13, 2022

The Ladas court concluded that because the case was dismissed before trial, the prevailing party “failed to qualify for recovery of exhibit costs under this standard.” … The court elaborated: “The statutory scheme clearly establishes two mutually exclusive sets of trial preparation expenses — one set which is allowable as a matter of right (§§ 1033.5, subd. (a), 1032, subd.

People v. Hardy

2 Cal. 4th 86 · California Supreme Court · Mar 12, 1992

Colette Mitchell testified under a grant of immunity. She met Hardy in early 1981 and began living with him and her brother, Ron Leahy. … To the extent defendants claim CALJIC No. 2.11.5 prevented the jury’s consideration of the fact that certain witnesses were granted immunity, we note the prosecutor himself mentioned that fact.

People v. Sidener

58 Cal. 2d 645 · California Supreme Court · Oct 25, 1962

Some judges may think they are best qualified to make this determination; some district attorneys may think they are; others may think that neither judges nor district attorneys should be entrusted with that responsibility … Code, §§ 1099, 1100, 1101, specifically providing immunity for a party defendant when the charge against him is dismissed by the court in order that he may be a witness either for the People (§ 1099) or for a codefendant

John L. v. Superior Court

14 Cal. Rptr. 3d 261 · California Supreme Court · Jun 17, 2004

Ansell (2001) 25 Cal.4th 868, 881 , 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 145 , 24 P.3d 1174 ( Ansell ) [subjecting convicted sex offenders to new restrictions on procedure for removing civil disabilities even where qualifying crimes predated … Indeed, by making it easier to prove a probation violation alleged under section 777(a)(2), Proposition 21 ensures that new misconduct otherwise immune from either an adult criminal prosecution or a new section 602 proceeding

People v. Jones

53 Cal. 3d 1115 · California Supreme Court · Jun 27, 1991

Coleman testified that psychiatrists and psychologists in general are no more qualified than lay persons to determine whether a person is schizophrenic or whether a criminal defendant was sane when the offense was committed … More clearly still, counsel offered new evidence. Dr. Keyes was a new witness; she had formed a new opinion; and her opinion rested on a new basis.

People v. Montiel

5 Cal. 4th 877 · California Supreme Court · Aug 12, 1993

He described the confined life of a condemned inmate but indicated his good behavior had qualified him for maximum death row privileges. … or “prior” to, those just established beyond reasonable doubt at the guilt phase of the same case.

People v. Giles

55 Cal. Rptr. 3d 133 · California Supreme Court · Mar 5, 2007

There, the witness purchased drugs from the defendant, but before trial refused to testify despite having been granted immunity. … As the majority acknowledges, the evidence available independent of victim Brenda Avie's statements demonstrated clearly and convincingly that defendant Dwayne Giles shot and killed her and was not acting in self-defense.

Schiffman v. Richfield Oil Co.

8 Cal. 2d 211 · California Supreme Court · Jan 29, 1937

It is not qualified by the provisions of the trust declaration giving the trustees the right to sell all trust property. … Respondent urges us now to hold that said cases establish the character of the assignments to him, which were made by a lessee, in this case a sublessee, rather than by a landowner-lessor.

People v. McAlpin

53 Cal. 3d 1289 · California Supreme Court · Jul 18, 1991

Given the nature of the trial court's error and the state of the evidence, I believe that reversal is clearly required. … In light of all the evidence, I find the majority's harmless error determination clearly unsupportable.

People v. Cain

10 Cal. 4th 1 · California Supreme Court · May 4, 1995

Defendant fails to establish ineffective assistance of counsel. … Any error, moreover, was clearly harmless.

Bancroft-Whitney Co. v. Glen

64 Cal. 2d 327 · California Supreme Court · Mar 17, 1966

When the company qualified to do business as a foreign corporation in California on January 5, 1962, the great majority, if not all, of its employees were persons who had just previously worked for plaintiff under the supervision … Conversely, the mere act of disclosing his activities cannot immunize the officer from liability where his conduct in other respects amounts to a breach of duty.

People v. Taylor

113 Cal. Rptr. 2d 827 · California Supreme Court · Dec 3, 2001

Second, the photograph was relevant to establish that a murder had in fact occurred. ( Ibid. ) And third, the photograph showed that the victims had been handcuffed together, supporting the prosecutor's theory of a planned … Our cases allow use of a felony to qualify a defendant both for first degree murder and for a special circumstance justifying the death penalty. (See People v.

People v. Hill

3 Cal. 4th 959 · California Supreme Court · Nov 19, 1992

The record does not establish the identity of the spectator. … The record in this case establishes no prejudice. *1003 Juror Selection Issues I.

Waller v. Southern Pacific Co.

66 Cal. 2d 201 · California Supreme Court · Mar 21, 1967

The challenged instruction stated that “Under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act the test to be applied in determining whether the railroad is liable is this: Do the facts, as established by the evidence justify with reason … Well, we will have to qualify it just this deal, because there can be arteriosclerosis and it doesn’t have to be generalized, or it just can affect certain areas. Now— “Q.

People v. Ashley

42 Cal. 2d 246 · California Supreme Court · Feb 19, 1954

The testimony of various witnesses and the opening of the escrow clearly corroborate Mrs. … All the cases cited in this connection are, of course, out of line with the traditional view that proof of a false promise does not establish the crime.

Reichert v. General Insurance of America

68 Cal. 2d 822 · California Supreme Court · Jul 3, 1968

We have said that the "statutes in this state clearly manifest a policy in favor of the free transferability of all types of property, including rights under contracts." ( Farmland Irr. Co. v. … Indeed, for our present purposes the bankruptcy allegation appears as well established as if the original complaint had been verified.