Case law

Nedlloyd Lines B v. v. Superior Court

3 Cal. 4th 459 · California Supreme Court · Aug 31, 1992

This court observed in Foley : "Initially, the concept of a duty of good faith developed in contract law as `a kind of "safety valve" to which judges may turn to fill gaps and qualify or limit rights and duties otherwise … Unlike the forum-selection clause in Smith, it cannot be said of the choice-of-law clause in this case that it was clearly intended by the parties to encompass related noncontractual causes of action.

Regents of University of California v. Superior Court

85 Cal. Rptr. 2d 257 · California Supreme Court · Jun 1, 1999

He complains that, without the right of action for which he contends, such persons "would be cloaked with immunity" of the most absolute sort. That is altogether false. … Under the deliberative process privilege, senior officials of all three branches of government enjoy a qualified, limited privilege not to disclose or to be examined concerning not only the mental processes by which a given

Goonewardene v. ADP, LLC

California Supreme Court · Feb 7, 2019

of action for negligent misrepresentation and negligence, the Court of Appeal found the allegations in the 6AC sufficient to support such tort causes of action, relying in part on its prior determination that plaintiff qualified … Given this conclusion, it would clearly be anomalous to impose tort liability, with its increased potential damages (see, e.g., Ehrlich v.

People v. Nguyen

95 Cal. Rptr. 2d 178 · California Supreme Court · May 4, 2000

That the injuries to the victims in Schoenfeld did not qualify as "bodily harm" for purposes of the increased penalty has no bearing on whether the asportation of the victims increased their "risk of harm." … Although our Daniels opinion does not speak clearly to the issue now before us, for two reasons I conclude that Daniels requires an increased risk of physical or bodily harm, and that an increased risk of only psychological

People v. Ramirez

California Supreme Court · Aug 25, 2022

Qualified jurors “need not be totally ignorant of the facts and issues involved.” (People v. … Second, in Sakarias the evidence pointed clearly to Waidla as having inflicted the fatal chopping blow.

People v. Sivongxxay

219 Cal. Rptr. 3d 265 · California Supreme Court · Jun 19, 2017

Thus, we conclude defendant has failed to meet his burden of establishing prejudice.‖ (Id., at p. 378.) … We held that the failure to obtain the statutorily required jury trial waiver qualified as a structural defect in the proceedings that could not be cured by resort to harmless error analysis.

Sheen v. Wells Fargo Bank

California Supreme Court · Mar 7, 2022

Wigod had argued that the bank had a duty to hire qualified customer service employees and train them to implement HAMP effectively. … The basic tests for determining the existence of such a duty are clearly set forth in Biakanja”]; cf.

People v. Mitchell

248 Cal. Rptr. 3d 587 · California Supreme Court · Jun 24, 2019

But Small did not like the bigger truck, and her poor credit status prevented her from qualifying for the more expensive truck that Mitchell preferred. … That instruction states: “A hallucination is a perception that has no objective reality. [¶] If the evidence establishes that the perpetrator of an unlawful killing suffered from a hallucination which contributed as a cause

People v. Landry

211 Cal. Rptr. 3d 160 · California Supreme Court · Dec 12, 2016

He testified that prison was staffed by inexperienced guards and less-than-qualified supervisors. The prison developed a reputation as being violent and out of control. … A writing that qualifies for admission under the secondary evidence rule must, nonetheless, be authenticated before it can be admitted.

Gutierrez v. Mofid

39 Cal. 3d 892 · California Supreme Court · Sep 26, 1985

Under Sanchez , plaintiff was clearly on "presumptive" notice of her claim at the time she saw the lawyer, and the one-year period had therefore started. (18 Cal.3d at pp. 101-103.) … This court should follow the precedent established in Jones v. Queen of the Valley Hospital (1979) 90 Cal. App.3d 700, 703 [ 153 Cal. Rptr. 662 ].

People v. Brown

16 Cal. Rptr. 3d 447 · California Supreme Court · Aug 2, 2004

Evidence Code Sections 801 and 1107 Section 801, subdivision (a), permits the introduction of testimony by a qualified expert when that testimony may "assist the trier of fact." … Specifically, the state did not establish that complainant suffers from BWS.

People v. Lopez

255 Cal. Rptr. 3d 526 · California Supreme Court · Nov 25, 2019

Warrantless searches “are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment—subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions.” (Katz v. … Where Arturo D. had contained no explicit acknowledgment of this incursion on privacy, Gant makes clear that this qualifies as a “serious” privacy threat that goes to the very core of the Fourth Amendment’s protections.

Oto, L. L.C. v. Kho

251 Cal. Rptr. 3d 714 · California Supreme Court · Aug 29, 2019

Clearly, then, the majority itself does not believe that Armendariz provides more than indirect and weak support for its view. … It clearly requires the parties to follow the same pleading, evidence, and motion practice rules that govern civil litigation.

People v. Penunuri

233 Cal. Rptr. 3d 324 · California Supreme Court · May 31, 2018

Conspiracy to Commit Murder and Murder of Jaime Castillo Jesus Marin, testifying under a grant of immunity, described a series of events leading to Jaime Castillo’s murder. … And it is difficult to square the majority’s insistence on the trivial role played by Delaloza’s statement with the weight and significance the prosecutor 14 very clearly thought

Berroteran v. Superior Court

California Supreme Court · Mar 7, 2022

Each deponent was designated by Ford as a “person most qualified” (PMQ). … knowledgeable/qualified] — perhaps both — by Ford” and that use of “these transcripts” should not be limited “to just this Brown versus Ford case.” At that point, Mr.

People v. D'Arcy

48 Cal. 4th 257 · California Supreme Court · Mar 11, 2010

The record clearly established that the “defendant’s willingness to proceed without counsel was predicated upon his mistaken belief, reinforced by the failure of the trial judge to promptly and unequivocally reject the condition … We begin our analysis with a discussion of the legal principles established in Crawford.

People v. Bonin

47 Cal. 3d 808 · California Supreme Court · Jan 9, 1989

None, as we shall explain, establishes reversible error. A. Conflict of Interest on the Part of Defense Counsel Defendant contends that in violation of the rule established by the United States Supreme Court in Wood v. … None, as we shall explain, establishes reversible error. A.

People v. Abilez

61 Cal. Rptr. 3d 526 · California Supreme Court · Jun 28, 2007

A defendant is entitled to relief if the record clearly shows that the first appointed attorney is not providing adequate representation [citation] or that defendant and counsel have become embroiled in such an irreconcilable … Defendant similarly fails to establish that the trial court’s inquiry into his complaint was deficient.

In Re Mooney

10 Cal. 2d 1 · California Supreme Court · Oct 29, 1937

friend, to petitioner’s sister-in-law offering her immunity for her sister, petitioner’s wife, in the event she would change the time that they assertedly had gone on to the Eilers roof to watch the parade. … With this rule in mind, we will make reference, as indicative of the propensities of petitioner, to his revolutionary activities which clearly establish his aim and purpose to weaken and undermine, with the view of ultimate

People v. Williams

58 Cal. 4th 197 · California Supreme Court · Dec 19, 2013

This delay of nearly seven years clearly qualifies as “ ‘presumptively prejudicial’ ” within the meaning of Barker . … In sum, the delay in this case “clearly suffices to trigger the speedy trial enquiry.” (Ibid.)