Case law

People v. Ghent

43 Cal. 3d 739 · California Supreme Court · Aug 13, 1987

Defendant's primary defenses at trial were his lack of deliberation and premeditation, and insufficiency of the evidence to establish forcible rape. … Under the circumstances, any error in instructing on abandonment of criminal intent was clearly harmless. 8.

People v. Smith

54 Cal. Rptr. 3d 245 · California Supreme Court · Feb 5, 2007

To demonstrate that a denial of severance was reversible error, defendant must “ ‘clearly establish that there [was] a substantial danger of prejudice requiring that the charges be separately tried.’ ” (People v. … The information was not a written product, nor does defendant’s statement qualify as an aspect of defense counsel’s impressions, opinions, legal research or theories “other than a writing.” (See Dowden v.

People v. Williams

56 Cal. 4th 165 · California Supreme Court · Feb 7, 2013

Prospective Juror R.H. was clearly excludable for cause, as defendant concedes. … You understand that quite clearly? ―A. Yes, sir.‖ Defendant claims the trial court should not have permitted such leading questions.

Landgate, Inc. v. California Coastal Commission

17 Cal. 4th 1006 · California Supreme Court · Apr 30, 1998

In some instances, a lot line adjustment may be so minor as to warrant the Commission finding that it is de minimis and qualifies for a waiver pursuant to section 30624.7. … We do not agree with the Court of Appeal that anything in the record establishes that the Commission was motivated in its decisions by a “jurisdictional spat” with the County.

People v. Johnson

California Supreme Court · Dec 27, 2018

And defendant himself concedes that his attack on Hauser was “clearly the primary reason” for excluding him from the trial. … And I want that placed clearly in the record because I carefully observed that. And that is my considered evaluation of the matter.

Dyna-Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment & Housing Commission

43 Cal. 3d 1379 · California Supreme Court · Nov 2, 1987

The Legislature has clearly demonstrated that it knows how to add a punitive remedy to this statute when it wishes to do so." (32 Cal.3d at p. 225.) C. … This decision is clearly within the Department's discretion...."

Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. William C.

54 Cal. 4th 610 · California Supreme Court · Jul 5, 2012

carelessness but more than the failure to use ordinary care”), and “willful neglect” (“[i]ntentional or reckless failure to carry out a legal duty, esp. in caring for a child”) (ibid.), but section 300(f) uses none of these qualifying … The Legislature has clearly provided that when one‟s abuse or neglect has had this tragic consequence, there is a proper basis for a finding that his or her surviving child may be made a dependent of the juvenile court, and

Martinez v. Combs

49 Cal. 4th 35 · California Supreme Court · Jun 9, 2010

The remainder of the definition—“exercises control over . . . wages, hours, or working conditions”—has no clearly identified, precisely literal statutory or common law antecedent. … “plaintiff . . . ha[d] not persuaded us that one may infer from the history and purposes of section 1194 a clear legislative intent to depart, in the application of that statute, from the common law understanding of who qualifies

People v. Alexander

49 Cal. 4th 846 · California Supreme Court · Jul 15, 2010

Bulman could not see clearly who he was. While bent over, Bulman tried to use the police radio, but it did not work because the car's ignition was not turned on. … In any event, defendant has not established prejudice resulting from the alleged error.

People v. Coddington

97 Cal. Rptr. 2d 528 · California Supreme Court · Sep 27, 2000

Like a judicial grant of immunity (see People v. … That appellant had engaged in violent criminal acts was clearly established by the evidence and effectively conceded by appellant at the penalty phase.

People v. Ford

60 Cal. 2d 772 · California Supreme Court · Feb 4, 1964

When presented these figures on cross-examination the witness qualified his direct testimony by saying that in such circumstances defendant “might still be able to calculate, [but] I don’t know about coldly calculate.” … As the issue of intoxication was thus clearly raised by the evidence, it was essential that the jury be correctly instructed regarding the possible effect of that evidence on the state of mind in which defendant did the acts

Cedars-Sinai Medical Center v. Superior Court

74 Cal. Rptr. 2d 248 · California Supreme Court · May 11, 1998

If evidence would not have helped to establish plaintiffs case an award of damages for its destruction would work a windfall for the plaintiff." ( Petrik v. … law; (2) where the Court of Appeal was without jurisdiction of the cause; or (3) where. because of disqualification or other reason, the decision of the Court of Appeal lacks the concurrence of the required majority of qualified

Ivanhoe Irrigation District v. All Parties & Persons

53 Cal. 2d 692 · California Supreme Court · Feb 29, 1960

in any event, if this court were now to rule that the districts lacked capacity to enter into the contracts the decision would be reviewable by the United States Supreme Court; that in deciding this ease the high court clearly … The Confirmers also contend that none of the Objectors legally may attack the election proceedings because the record does not show that any Objector is a qualified voter within the districts involved.

People v. Avila

46 Cal. 4th 680 · California Supreme Court · Jun 15, 2009

Saelee (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 27, 30 [ 40 Cal.Rptr.2d 790 ] [“A restitution fine qualifies as punishment for purposes of the prohibition against ex post facto laws.”]; People v. … Walker (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1013, 1024 [ 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 902 , 819 P.2d 861 ] [restitution fine “qualifies as punishment” for purpose of enforcing plea bargain].)

McCarroll v. Los Angeles County District Council of Carpenters

49 Cal. 2d 45 · California Supreme Court · Sep 13, 1957

June 3, 1957), that the Norris- LaGuardia Act was never intended to prohibit specific enforcement of agreements to arbitrate, the Supreme Court has not suggested otherwise; strike injunctions clearly were intended to fall … And it is said: "It follows also from the rule as to supremacy of the United States within its proper sphere that the individual states may not in any way impair, qualify, or disturb the enjoyment of federal constitutional

Morrison v. State Board of Education

1 Cal. 3d 214 · California Supreme Court · Nov 20, 1969

For a number of years prior to 1965 petitioner held a General Secondary Life Diploma and a Life Diploma to Teach Exceptional Children, issued by the State Board of Education, which qualified petitioner for employment as a … This case is thus clearly distinguishable from Bernstein v.

Fuentes v. Empire Nissan

California Supreme Court · Feb 2, 2026

The court further ruled that Fuentes had established “a low to moderate degree of substantive unconscionability.” … Unconscionability “The general principles of unconscionability are well established.

Committee on Children's Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp.

35 Cal. 3d 197 · California Supreme Court · Dec 22, 1983

The California Legislature, however, has not established the necessary administrative structure. … Established rules of pleading should not be applied so inflexibly that they bar use of such remedies.

Parr v. Municipal Court

3 Cal. 3d 861 · California Supreme Court · Jan 18, 1971

Raich (1915) 239 U.S. 33 [ 60 L.Ed. 131 , 36 S.Ct. 7 ], the United States Supreme Court invalidated an Arizona initiative measure requiring employers of five or more persons to hire 80 percent native-born citizens or qualified … Accordingly, that portion *872 of the ordinance which prohibits persons from lying or sitting on park lawns is clearly a reasonable and proper means of protecting the grass. [1] Nevertheless, the majority conclude that the

In re Welch

61 Cal. 4th 489 · California Supreme Court · Jun 22, 2015

The attorneys felt that she clearly did not want to talk to them. Indeed, the attorneys felt Welch was in control of his family and that he did not want them to cooperate with the attorneys. … Martell‘s testimony qualifies as penalty phase rebuttal evidence relevant to determining the significance of the child abuse evidence. Welch also objects to the referee‘s finding that Dr.