Case law

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. Hardin

California Supreme Court · Mar 4, 2024

vulnerabilities” of youth offenders “is crime-specific” (Miller, supra, 567 U.S. at p. 473), and the Legislature nowhere suggested that young offenders who commit certain crimes, including crimes punishable by LWOP, are immune … Given these qualifiers, it is 45  PEOPLE v. HARDIN Liu, J., dissenting not clear what persuasive value the court thinks Frye has here.

Barclays Bank International, Ltd. v. Franchise Tax Board

2 Cal. 4th 708 · California Supreme Court · May 11, 1992

“Concurrent federal and state taxation of income, of course, is a well-established norm,” the court wrote. … of 1956, Congress authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to “distribute, apportion, or allocate gross income . . . between or among” multicorporate enterprises, including those with foreign domiciles, “in order . . . clearly

People v. Alcala

4 Cal. 4th 742 · California Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1992

The police investigators preserved her prehypnotic recollection by photographing the June 21 composite drawing of the suspect, which clearly established that Bridget's testimony pertained to matters that she had both recalled … Rptr.2d 102 , 831 P.2d 327 ], defendant's contention clearly lacks merit.

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.

Pacific Merchant Shipping Assn. v. Voss

12 Cal. 4th 503 · California Supreme Court · Dec 29, 1995

By contrast, nondiscriminatory regulations that have only incidental effects on interstate [or foreign] commerce are valid unless ‘the burden imposed on such commerce is clearly excessive in relation to the putative local … These claims were not properly before the Court of Appeal because the trial court expressly declined to address them in the first instance and limited its judgment to the commerce clause claim. 10 The qualifying clause refers

Alcaraz v. Vece

14 Cal. 4th 1149 · California Supreme Court · Jan 31, 1997

When the park was established in 1945, the United States had attempted to purchase this land. … Moreover, even assuming that something less than an ongoing effort to gain ownership through adverse possession might qualify as occupation of another's land with the intent to control it within the meaning of section 328E

Turner v. Victoria

California Supreme Court · Aug 3, 2023

The director enforcement statutes do not merely specify “what a plaintiff must allege in a complaint to establish standing.” (Ibid.) … An ousted director cannot readily establish fellow board members’ motivations.

People v. Wims

10 Cal. 4th 293 · California Supreme Court · Jun 5, 1995

He said: "Clearly he jumped into the assault. You know, Mr. Wims is no boyscout. What you see in evidence is definitely not a boyscout knife." … Consequently, the court concluded, due process did not require the prosecution to establish the defendants' firearm *322 possession beyond a reasonable doubt.

People v. Schultz

271 Cal. Rptr. 3d 387 · California Supreme Court · Nov 23, 2020

As counsel acknowledged at oral argument, Magee was qualified to testify about the procedures she conducted herself, including the creation of the DNA profiles. (See People v. … The trial court had ruled clearly that the contents of the letters were inadmissible. The prosecutor nonetheless directly asked Fitzgerald a question regarding the contents of one letter.

People v. Kelly

68 Cal. Rptr. 3d 531 · California Supreme Court · Dec 6, 2007

The record does not clearly establish defendant’s absence on these occasions. It merely indicates that the proceedings in question “were held in the hallway.” … Defendant cites cases that, “as a group, may be read to establish ‘that the victim’s lack of clothing ... is insufficient to establish specific sexual intent.’ (People v.

Nathanson v. Superior Court

12 Cal. 3d 355 · California Supreme Court · Aug 19, 1974

As previously noted, Zita's petition was clearly one for an order authorizing the filing of a late creditor's claim, in other words, a claim which had not been timely filed; indeed it stated that the claim was filed on a … The majority opinion holds that no document can qualify as a claim in probate — even as a defective claim whose defects can be cured by later amendment — unless it takes the form of a demand upon the probate estate and has

People v. Watkins

California Supreme Court · Feb 13, 2013

Clearly there was “some evidence in the record that, if believed by the jury, would sufficiently support the suggested inference.” (People v. … Presence of motive may tend to establish guilt. Absence of motive may tend to establish innocence.

People v. Peoples

62 Cal. 4th 718 · California Supreme Court · Feb 4, 2016

They are not clearly more prejudicial than probative. The defendant‘s claim is therefore without merit 29  4. … Amen, also a psychiatrist, was qualified as an expert in clinical psychiatry with a specialty in brain imaging.

Abbott Laboratories v. Super. Ct.

California Supreme Court · Jun 25, 2020

The broad language of these provisions is not qualified by any reference to geography or the identity of the plaintiff. … It purported to absolve the company of past wrongdoings and immunize it from future unfair competition lawsuits brought by anyone acting on behalf of the state for alleged violations of any acts covered by the injunction.

People v. Rangel

62 Cal. 4th 1192 · California Supreme Court · Mar 28, 2016

[and] [h]e opened 4 Frank Jr. was granted use immunity for any action with respect to the case after October 7, 1995. 6 the door. . . . … Natasha‟s statements to her grandmother “clearly were not made with the primary purpose of creating evidence for [defendant‟s] prosecution.” (Ohio v. Clark, supra, 576 U.S. at p. ___ [135 S.Ct. at p. 2181].)

Keating v. Superior Court

31 Cal. 3d 584 · California Supreme Court · Jun 10, 1982

Council, etc. (10th Cir.1980) 614 F.2d 698 , 703, cert. den. (1980) 449 U.S. 824 [ 66 L.Ed.2d 27 , 101 S.Ct. 85 ] [adopting a "clearly erroneous" standard of review].) (8) We have recently acknowledged that while there is … ARBITRABILITY OF THE FRANCHISE INVESTMENT LAW CLAIMS Contrary to the majority, I believe that the state cannot immunize certain civil actions from application of the Federal Arbitration Act merely by fashioning, after the

Toland v. Sunland Housing Group, Inc.

74 Cal. Rptr. 2d 878 · California Supreme Court · Jun 1, 1998

App.3d 774, 785-786 , 162 Cal.Rptr. 64 ["Where the employer should recognize that a risk is likely to arise as a result of a method of work which the employer knows that the contractor will adopt, this is clearly a peculiar … Summary judgment practice imposes on a moving defendant the burden of proving that a necessary element of the plaintiffs case cannot be established. (Code Civ. Proc, § 437c; Addy v.

People v. Lamb

California Supreme Court · Jul 11, 2024

Smith opined that while Harris was not psychotic, she was “hyper” and clearly under the influence of amphetamine. In Dr. … As to Rump, the court ruled the statement would be relevant to establish knowledge for the attempted murder charge noting a parole officer qualifies as a peace officer.

People v. Ghobrial

234 Cal. Rptr. 3d 669 · California Supreme Court · Jun 21, 2018

The principles that guide the inquiry are well established. … The jury was properly instructed with CALJIC No. 2.90, which establishes the prosecution’s burden of establishing the defendant’s guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt.”