Case law

People v. Aledamat

251 Cal. Rptr. 3d 371 · California Supreme Court · Aug 26, 2019

We conclude the usual “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard of review established in Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24 (Chapman) for federal constitutional error applies. … There was no insufficiency of proof in the sense that there clearly was evidence from which a jury could find that the victim had been asported the 90 feet.

Environmental Protection Information Center v. California Department of Forestry & Fire Protection

44 Cal. 4th 459 · California Supreme Court · Jul 17, 2008

In this case, the trial court found that the Steelworkers qualified as a citizen litigant under Waste Management. … Although in practice these lines may be blurred, the Legislature clearly contemplated distinct statutory paths to the same objective.

Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board

40 Cal. 4th 1 · California Supreme Court · Nov 13, 2006

This version clearly extended the limit on ex parte communications from the administrative hearing (trial) stage to the final decision stage. … In light of these concessions, we consider it established that the reports of hearing were provided to the agency’s decision maker.

Estate of Rider

199 Cal. 724 · California Supreme Court · Dec 7, 1926

Mills & Co., named in said will as the executor thereof, was appointed as such executor by the probate court and thereafter qualified and entered upon the discharge of its duties. … This is in accord with the well-established doctrine *738 that the law favors the vesting of estates and every interest will be presumed to be vested unless a contrary intention is shown (10 Cal. Jur. 603 ; Civ.

Lugosi v. Universal Pictures

25 Cal. 3d 813 · California Supreme Court · Dec 3, 1979

The trial court's findings do not clearly set forth the rationale behind the different treatment accorded the royalties received during this period. … However, such a limitation is irrelevant in establishing the parameters of the distinctive common law right of publicity.

People v. Superior Court (Zamudio)

96 Cal. Rptr. 2d 463 · California Supreme Court · Jul 12, 2000

We do not presume that the Legislature intends, when it enacts a statute, to overthrow long-established principles of law unless such intention is clearly expressed or necessarily implied. (Theodor v. … Accordingly, “[a] *206 conviction under such statute ha[d] been found insufficient to establish theft for purposes of the [Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq.].” (Brady et al., Cal.

Aas v. Superior Court of San Diego Cty.

24 Cal. 627 · California Supreme Court · Dec 4, 2000

Those cases, however, do not establish the rule plaintiffs seek. … First among these is that the Chief Justice, while asserting that our holding “offends . . . established common law” (cone. & dis. opn. of George, C.

People v. Williams

16 Cal. 4th 635 · California Supreme Court · Aug 21, 1997

Then, accompanied by his two male companions, defendant went into an establishment known as the Vermont Club. … Prosecution witness Ivan Scott does not qualify as “a person within the third degree of relationship” to Judge Morrow. In Robinson v.

People ex rel. Lockyer v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.

37 Cal. 4th 707 · California Supreme Court · Dec 22, 2005

We will review the text and history of the FCLAA, analyze the leading United States Supreme Court cases, and then apply the principles established by those cases. A. … Justice Blackmun asserted that “[w]e do not, absent unambiguous evidence, infer a scope of pre-emption beyond that which clearly is mandated by Congress’ language.”

People v. Smith

25 Cal. Rptr. 3d 554 · California Supreme Court · Apr 27, 2005

During the death-qualifying voir dire she said there should not be a death penalty; she, like Juror Donna T, rated herself at “five” on the death penalty rating scale. … Here, Janice Foster’s three-year tutorial relationship with defendant qualifies.

People v. Lewis

26 Cal. 4th 334 · California Supreme Court · Aug 2, 2001

Neither party requested a hearing outside the jury to determine whether Pridgon was qualified to testify. … The exchange between Sally B. and Paul W. clearly involved their decision-making processes. (People v. Hedgecock, supra, 51 Cal.3d at p. 419.)

Lantzy v. Centex Homes

2 Cal. Rptr. 3d 655 · California Supreme Court · Aug 27, 2003

Moreover, the Court of Appeal concluded, just as section 337.15 is subject to equitable tolling, the statute also is not immune from equitable estoppel. … For that reason, we should not presume the Legislature intended to overthrow long-established principles of law unless such intention is made clearly to appear either by express declaration or by necessary implication ...

People v. Clark

50 Cal. 3d 583 · California Supreme Court · Apr 5, 1990

Defendant's claim, that the prosecutor improperly stated that there were no mitigating factors, isolates a single statement which in context was clearly a statement of the prosecutor's opinion of what the evidence established … Defendant was rearraigned and that finding included after the death qualifying voir dire had been completed.

People v. Massie

79 Cal. Rptr. 2d 816 · California Supreme Court · Nov 30, 1998

Defendant satisfies the first of these requirements: our cases hold that both Blacks and Hispanics qualify as “distinctive” groups for purposes of the fair-cross-section requirement. (People v. … its subsequent progress, both in the lower court and upon subsequent appeal, and, as here assumed, in any subsequent suit for the same cause of action, and this although in its subsequent consideration this court may be clearly

People v. McKinnon

7 Cal. 3d 899 · California Supreme Court · Sep 13, 1972

The defense was directed primarily to establishing the proposition that Gos was acting as an agent of the police when he opened the first carton presented by defendants. … In the case at bar we note that Officer McLaughlin was qualified on the witness stand as being well versed in the detection and identification of illegal narcotics.

Holbrook v. Board of Education

37 Cal. 2d 316 · California Supreme Court · May 25, 1951

Respondents contend that this ease establishes the rule that an employee of a school district occupies two part-time positions if he is employed to perform two different kinds of services ; that, therefore, the trial court … Meyer, supra, pp. 615-616 , is pertinent here: “The language of this statute clearly implies that, while one engaged solely in an administrative or supervisory capacity may not be classified as a permanent principal, yet

People v. Davis

46 Cal. 4th 539 · California Supreme Court · Jun 1, 2009

In the weeks before Polly’s remains were discovered, he helped establish a volunteer center to direct the search for her. … than juries that have not been death qualified.

People v. Kraft

99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 1 · California Supreme Court · Aug 10, 2000

“'“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.” [Citation.] … Allen (1976) 65 Cal.App.3d 426 [ 135 Cal.Rptr. 276 ] did not hold that to qualify under this exception to the hearsay rule a statement must be clear and unambiguous.

People v. Raley

2 Cal. 4th 870 · California Supreme Court · Jun 18, 1992

This requirement has been construed to introduce a very tight time limitation on out-of-court declarations which parties seek to qualify as ‘spontaneous exclamations.’ . . . … The evidence clearly is sufficient to establish a lewd act on a cMld under section 288, subdivision (a), defining a lewd act without use of force or coercion. (§ 288, subd. (a); compare § 288, subd.

People v. Johnson

61 Cal. 4th 734 · California Supreme Court · Jul 9, 2015

In her written questionnaire, Myra P. clearly and repeatedly wrote that she did not believe in the death penalty. … A violation of section 653m qualifies as a threat of force or violence under section 190.3, factor (b). (People v. Kirkpatrick (1994) 7 Cal.4th 988, 1014.)