Case law

Spring Valley Water Works v. Schottler

62 Cal. 69 · California Supreme Court · Nov 16, 1882

This we think abundantly established by the cases above cited. … The words used show clearly that they were intended to add something to what preceded them, to refer to kinds of property not previously mentioned, not to qualify anything.

People v. Oyama

29 Cal. 2d 164 · California Supreme Court · Oct 31, 1946

Since 1935, by appointment of the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of San Diego, Kajiro Oyama has been the duly qualified guardian of the person and estate of Fred Y. Oyama, a minor. … As to Fred Oyama, a citizen, it is argued that the Alien Land Law violates the mandate of the California Constitution that no citizen or class of citizens shall be “granted privileges or immunities which, upon the same terms

People v. Frierson

226 Cal. Rptr. 3d 582 · California Supreme Court · Dec 28, 2017

“[T]he petitioning defendant has the initial burden of establishing eligibility, and if that burden is met, then the prosecution has the opportunity to establish ineligibility on other grounds.” (People v. … As noted, a prospective sentence under the Act could not be an indeterminate life term unless the prosecution establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant qualifies for a third strike term.

Craib v. Bulmash

49 Cal. 3d 475 · California Supreme Court · Aug 28, 1989

Thus the state has limited, if any, interest in preserving the use of the records as evidence in a criminal action and defendant’s Fifth Amendment claim should clearly prevail unless use immunity is given. … In the absence of an applicable immunity provision, to avoid violation of the Constitution and to preserve the ability of the Division to perform its regulatory function, we should provide such immunity judicially.

Werner v. Southern California Associated Newpapers

35 Cal. 2d 121 · California Supreme Court · Apr 14, 1950

Justice Holmes clearly envisaged: “I have not yet adequately expressed the more than anxiety that I feel at the ever increasing scope given to the Fourteenth Amendment in cutting down what I believe to be the constitutional … Thus in cases both of absolute privilege and strict liability the importance of protecting one interest or another has been considered sufficient to justify the broadest immunity or liability to insure the desired immunity

Hunt v. Superior Court of Los Angeles

178 Cal. 470 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1918

As to the classified service the article contains various provisions which it is claimed establish a method of discharge, removal and reduction in rank. … But section 11 of article III of the charter clearly requires an appointment by the board of supervisors of “all county officers other than elective officers.”

People v. Murphy

105 Cal. Rptr. 2d 387 · California Supreme Court · Mar 29, 2001

Rather, the new offenses are used to establish the defendant’s status as a ‘habitual sexual offender’, and once that status is established, the defendant’s punishment is set.” … Section 666 operates like the Three Strikes law and section 667.71; it does not establish an enhancement, but establishes an alternate and elevated penalty for a petty theft conviction when a recidivist defendant has served

Los Angeles Unified School District v. Great American Insurance

49 Cal. 4th 739 · California Supreme Court · Jul 12, 2010

As we explained in Souza: “When the state makes a contract with an individual it is liable for a breach of its agreement in like manner as an individual, and the doctrine of governmental immunity does not apply.” … Although it is not a fiduciary toward its contractors, the Government— where the balance of knowledge is so clearly on its side—can no more betray a contractor into a ruinous course of action by silence than by the written

General Dynamics Corp. v. Superior Court

7 Cal. 4th 1164 · California Supreme Court · Jul 18, 1994

Sentry Insurance, supra, 1 Cal.4th at page 1095 , that the public policy at issue must be one that is not only “fundamental” but is clearly established in the Constitution and positive law of the state. … The contested ethical requirement must be clearly established by the ethics code or statutory provision; disagreements over policy are not actionable.

Valdez v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

57 Cal. 4th 1231 · California Supreme Court · Nov 14, 2013

Article 2.3 and its implementing regulations provide detailed requirements for establishing and operating these networks. … Here, the Board’s interpretation of section 4616.6 was clearly erroneous.

People v. Jimenez

9 Cal. 5th 53 · California Supreme Court · Mar 2, 2020

(e)); and immunizes Internet service providers from liability for the defined offenses (id., subd. (f)). … What we decided is that one version of Vehicle Code section 10851 — “taking or driving a vehicle without the owner’s consent” — established an offense qualifying as petty theft under the new Penal Code section 490.2.

DESERT ENVIRONMENT CONSER. ASSN. v. Public Util. Com.

8 Cal. 3d 739 · California Supreme Court · Jan 26, 1973

Under these circumstances an order by this court compelling the commission to adopt a particular procedure at this time would contravene the priorities established by the Legislature. … This is not to say, of course, that regulations under the EQA will be immune from review once adopted by the commission.

People v. Pokovich

48 Cal. Rptr. 3d 158 · California Supreme Court · Aug 31, 2006

Clearly, however, full cooperation, although essential, cannot be anticipated from defendants counseled not to speak for fear statements made while in a questionable mental state will subsequently be used to impeach their … from In re Wayne H. (1979) 24 Cal.3d 595 , 156 Cal.Rptr. 344 , 596 P.2d 1 , which similarly immunized a juvenile's statements to a probation officer for purposes of determining the proper disposition if guilt is established

People v. Hayes

91 Cal. Rptr. 2d 211 · California Supreme Court · Feb 16, 2000

Clearly there was no adoptive admission of Wynn’s alleged statement regarding her own and other jurors’ conduct. … None of this established present incompetence to stand trial.

People v. Gordon

10 Cal. 3d 460 · California Supreme Court · Dec 3, 1973

The evidence is clearly sufficient to warrant the conclusion by a properly instructed jury that, prior to her acquittal at the first trial, Carolyn was liable to prosecution for Carl’s murder. … When she testified in her own behalf in the first trial, her testimony was clearly to be distrusted under the rationale set forth in Wallin .

People v. Chacon

53 Cal. Rptr. 3d 876 · California Supreme Court · Feb 8, 2007

The court declined to confer immunity on the city attorney, and took the novel question of the defense under submission. … Ohio, supra, 360 U.S. at page 437 , the commission chairman conducting the hearing “clearly appeared to be the agent of the State.”

Pinsker v. Pacific Coast Society of Orthodontists

12 Cal. 3d 541 · California Supreme Court · Sep 20, 1974

California decisions clearly illustrate the dual nature of this review. … Schleimer as “qualified” to practice orthodontics by virtue of his general dentistry license does not preclude defendant societies from establishing a higher standard of qualification for their own purposes.

Lindeleaf v. Agricultural Labor Relations Board

41 Cal. 3d 861 · California Supreme Court · May 29, 1986

If there is an established lunch break, the one-hour period shall include such lunch break. If there is no established lunch break, the one-hour period may be at any time during the working day.” (Cal. Admin. … Lindeleaf offers no authority for its position, which would potentially eliminate any disincentive for employers to pursue dilatory appeals by too easily immunizing them against make-whole demands.

Helfend v. Southern California Rapid Transit District

2 Cal. 3d 1 · California Supreme Court · Feb 18, 1970

Indeed, many jurisdictions that have abolished or limited the collateral source rule have also established a means for assessing the plaintiff’s costs for counsel directly against the defendant rather than imposing the contingent … The second alternative would mechanically follow the rules established in Johnson and Souza, but would totally undermine the effect of Souza by indirectly imposing the rule upon the public entity by means of the indemnification

People v. Sloper

198 Cal. 238 · California Supreme Court · Feb 26, 1926

Certain decisions are cited wherein it was held to be error to instruct the jury that any fact “must be clearly established by satisfactory proof.” … To require a fact to be clearly established casts upon the actor a burden greater in degree than would be necessary to establish it by satisfactory proof.