Case law

People v. Partida

35 Cal. Rptr. 3d 644 · California Supreme Court · Nov 21, 2005

Finally, it found the perceived error harmless under the test for state law error established in People v. … The majority never explains what qualifies as a claim and what qualifies as a legal consequence (or how to distinguish between the two), nor does the majority explain why the former is barred but the *657 latter is preserved

Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400

107 Cal. Rptr. 2d 617 · California Supreme Court · May 31, 2001

In other words, defendants have shown that plaintiff has not established, and cannot reasonably expect to establish, a prima facie case of causation. … The majority does not dispute that plaintiffs expert was qualified to opine on the efficacy of security guards to deter particular types of crimes under particular circumstances.

Estate of Beach

15 Cal. 3d 623 · California Supreme Court · Dec 1, 1975

Reserve stock was freed from the restrictions imposed by the executor's multifarious duties and limited powers and became subject to the broad powers conferred upon the trustee by the terms of the trust. [18] "It is the established … The awards must be upheld unless they appear so clearly out of proportion to the services performed as to be an abuse of discretion. ( Estate of Taylor, supra, 66 Cal.2d 855, 860 ; Estate of Turino (1970) 8 Cal.

People v. Ochoa

79 Cal. Rptr. 2d 408 · California Supreme Court · Jan 27, 1999

Hooker. [¶] I am taking this examination freely and voluntarily, and without any promise of reward or immunity, and without any force (mental or physical), or threat of any force. [¶] I clearly understand that I am not required … It would seem to me that as between thinking clearly and cooperating with counsel and some minor discomfort as a result of hives, it’s in his best interests to be able to think clearly and cooperate with counsel.”

Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP v. J-M Mfg. Co.

237 Cal. Rptr. 3d 424 · California Supreme Court · Aug 30, 2018

And while we noted the trial court’s remedy in that case was “consistent with a long, clearly established line of cases” denying all recovery for transactions made in violation of Government Code section 1090 (Thomson, at … However, as the majority later recognizes, there was “ ‘a long, clearly established line of cases’ denying all recovery for” the kind of violation at issue in Thomson. (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 39, fn. 16.)

People v. Thompson

45 Cal. 3d 86 · California Supreme Court · Apr 28, 1988

In that case defense counsel clearly conveyed to the trier of fact that he felt his client was committing perjury. … McCree (1986) 476 U.S. 162 [ 90 L.Ed.2d 137 , 106 S.Ct. 1758 ], The court determined that “death qualified” jurors did not represent a distinctive group in the community.

People v. Carmen

36 Cal. 2d 768 · California Supreme Court · Mar 1, 1951

There is no contention that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction of first degree murder and it is clearly ample. … Four qualified doctors testified that defendant was sane when the killing and assault took place. The judgment and order denying a new trial on the first count (first degree murder) are reversed.

People v. Hopson

219 Cal. Rptr. 3d 717 · California Supreme Court · Jul 3, 2017

It is undisputed that Thomas‘s postarrest confession to police — which defendant had no opportunity to test through cross-examination — qualifies as testimonial within the meaning of Crawford. … Nor, finally, can it be said that defendant clearly and unambiguously waived her right to confront her accomplice, Thomas, about his confession by attributing other statements to Thomas during her own testimony.7 7

Smiley v. Citibank

11 Cal. 4th 138 · California Supreme Court · Sep 1, 1995

into effect the powers vested in the government of the United States'" and was thus immune from state taxation. ( Osborn v. … Furthermore, although Congress clearly possesses the authority to exempt nationally chartered banks from the general operation of state law, as we explained in Perdue v.

People v. Eddie M.

3 Cal. Rptr. 3d 119 · California Supreme Court · Aug 7, 2003

Instead, the 1986 Act emphasized the phrase “[probation] violation,” then simply qualified that term based on whether the violation “amount[ed\ to a crime.” (Former § 777(a)(2), italics added.) … [f] (c) The facts alleged in the notice shall be established by a preponderance of the evidence at a hearing to change, modify, or set aside a previous order.

People v. Bandhauer

1 Cal. 3d 609 · California Supreme Court · Jan 21, 1970

In addition, it was established that defendant had suffered prior convictions of forgery, receiving stolen property, and escape. Defendant did not take the witness stand. … When the remarks selected by defendant ( ante, fn. 1) are viewed, as they must be, in the context of the entire argument, it clearly appears the prosecutor was referring to the escape incident primarily to rebut Dr.

Taylor v. Superior Court

3 Cal. 3d 578 · California Supreme Court · Dec 2, 1970

Nothing is added, therefore, when the robber makes the threat explicit by concluding his demands with the qualifying phrase, "or I'll shoot" — or any variation on that theme, e.g., "or I'll kill you," "or I'll blow your head … When murder has been established pursuant to the foregoing principles, Penal Code section 189 may be invoked to determine its degree. ( People v.

State of California v. Superior Court (Lyon)

29 Cal. 3d 210 · California Supreme Court · Mar 20, 1981

It held very clearly that the applicability of the public trust doctrine does not turn upon whether a body of water is subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, but upon whether it is navigable in fact. … The Rumsey Gauge refers to a method by which Captain George Rumsey established the level of Clear Lake.

People v. Osband

13 Cal. 4th 622 · California Supreme Court · Jul 29, 1996

‘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.’ … Nevertheless, as stated, the burden was his to “ ‘clearly establish that there is a substantial danger of prejudice’ ” arising from the joinder of charges (People v. Sandoval, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 172).

State Building & Construction Trades Council v. City of Vista

54 Cal. 4th 547 · California Supreme Court · Jul 2, 2012

“If the subject of the statute fails to qualify as one of statewide concern, then the conflicting charter city measure is a „municipal affair‟ and „beyond the reach of legislative enactment.‟ ” (Ibid.) … In light of this constitutional provision, the salary level of the mayor and city council members clearly falls within a city‟s municipal affairs, as does the compensation level of the “city police force” as well as those

People v. Parker

California Supreme Court · May 19, 2022

The trial court did not err by concluding Sperber was qualified to serve as an expert. The evidence did not show Sperber “ ‘ “ ‘ “clearly lack[ed] qualification as an expert.” ’ ” ’ ” (People v. … We have held CALJIC No. 2.90 “establishes the prosecution’s burden of establishing the defendant’s guilt ‘beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” (People v. Ghobrial, supra, 5 Cal.5th at p. 286.)

People v. Taylor

26 Cal. 4th 1155 · California Supreme Court · Dec 3, 2001

Second, the photograph was relevant to establish that a murder had in fact occurred. (Ibid.) … 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. Ochoa, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 479; People v.

People v. Virgil

51 Cal. 4th 1210 · California Supreme Court · Jun 30, 2011

‟s responses in the questionnaire, and in court, consistently showed that he was qualified to serve as a juror. … Presence of motive may tend to establish guilt. Absence of motive may tend to establish innocence.

People v. Merriman

60 Cal. 4th 1 · California Supreme Court · Aug 18, 2014

(d)(1) [listing rape, sexual penetration with a foreign object, and forcible oral copulation as qualifying sexual offenses].) … The court qualified its ruling by directing the prosecutor to ask Jensen about the incident without giving the details.

People v. Frierson

53 Cal. 3d 730 · California Supreme Court · May 2, 1991

Documentary evidence established that the juvenile court sustained a petition alleging that defendant had murdered Green. The court committed defendant to the California Youth Authority. … Guzman (1988) 45 Cal.3d 915, 956 [ 248 Cal.Rptr. 467 , 755 P.2d *743 917] [use of words like “I think” to qualify answers does not undermine a finding of substantial impairment].) We find no error. C.