Case law

Citizens Against Rent Control v. City of Berkeley

27 Cal. 3d 819 · California Supreme Court · Aug 7, 1980

Rptr. 201 , 556 P.2d 301 ] (invalidating expenditure limitations on campaigns to qualify ballot propositions). … It clearly violates First Amendment principles, both of freedom of speech and association, as repeatedly expressed by the United States Supreme Court.

Wilson v. Eu

1 Cal. 4th 707 · California Supreme Court · Jan 27, 1992

Justice Frankfurter clearly saw the issue and the restricted role of the judiciary nearly four decades ago. In Colegrove v. … New Jersey's attempted justification of the challenged redistricting was held clearly inadequate.

Roa v. Lodi Medical Group, Inc.

37 Cal. 3d 920 · California Supreme Court · Feb 7, 1985

The validity of such legislative regulation of attorney fees is well established. Over 60 years ago, in Calhoun v. … Because of federal concepts of sovereign immunity, the government has been free to prohibit any tort claims against itself.

People v. Romero and Self

62 Cal. 4th 1 · California Supreme Court · Aug 27, 2015

during voir dire the prosecutor improperly and repeatedly asked Hispanic prospective jurors more ―probing and detailed questions‖ than he asked Caucasian prospective jurors in a successful effort to eliminate ―all eligible, qualified … However, acts of a person who intends to commit a crime will constitute an attempt where those acts clearly indicate a certain, unambiguous intent to commit that specific crime.

People v. Coleman

48 Cal. 3d 112 · California Supreme Court · Mar 2, 1989

Though the fact that all the jurors selected said they could be impartial does not automatically establish the possibility of a fair trial (People v. … The mandatory nature of such an enhancement, though immunizing it from being stricken under rule 441(b), does not preclude applicability of the rest of the sentencing rules. (See People v.

People v. Simon

1 Cal. 5th 98 · California Supreme Court · Jul 18, 2016

(d) Capital Offense Although joinder resulted in the Sterling murder being charged as a capital offense, Simon has not clearly shown potential prejudice under this factor because joining the charges neither converted … It is well established that imperfect self-defense is not an affirmative defense. (See People v. Barton (1995) 12 Cal.4th 186, 199-201 (Barton).)

People v. Potts

245 Cal. Rptr. 3d 2 · California Supreme Court · Mar 28, 2019

(b)), the initiative does not provide for additional resources to increase the pool of attorneys who are qualified and willing to accept these assignments. … And it did not provide additional resources for appointment of qualified counsel.

People v. Chun

45 Cal. 4th 1172 · California Supreme Court · Mar 30, 2009

That being the case, shooting at a vehicle that is actually occupied clearly is inherently dangerous. *1189 But the second restriction—the "merger doctrine"—is very much at issue. … As we have explained, this court has long refused to abolish it because it is so firmly established in our law.

AIU Insurance v. Superior Court

51 Cal. 3d 807 · California Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1990

paid to another party to compensate it *821 for wrongs committed by the insured; they are simply “sums which the insured becomes legally obligated to pay because of property damage,” failing to fulfill the “as damages” qualifier … Under established principles, we decline to apply a definition that would create this result. (See Civ.

People v. Millwee

74 Cal. Rptr. 2d 418 · California Supreme Court · May 18, 1998

Coleman clearly favored life imprisonment and suggested he would never vote for death. … The record also does not establish that information about a “chemical imbalance” in defendant was available even upon reasonable investigation.

Styne v. Stevens

109 Cal. Rptr. 2d 14 · California Supreme Court · Jul 12, 2001

(a)), and that matters asserted purely for defensive purposes do not qualify. … Certainly the superior court need not refer to the Commissioner a case which, despite a party’s contrary claim, clearly has nothing to do with the Act.

People v. Valencia

220 Cal. Rptr. 3d 230 · California Supreme Court · Jul 3, 2017

But it does not establish that there are two ways of reading the entirety of section 1170.18(c). … That is simply a policy judgment — and one that the voters made clearly in the text of Proposition 47.

People v. Hajek and Vo

California Supreme Court · Jul 23, 2014

Alice’s remark was clearly based on her observation of Vo’s open use of the knife on her mother. … Presence of motive may tend to establish guilt. Absence of motive may tend to establish innocence.

P. ex rel. Garcia-Brower v. Kolla's, Inc.

California Supreme Court · May 22, 2023

On this point, the court responded that “the injunction obtained by Jaramillo established a ‘public benefit’ ” (ibid.) because it “will . . . inure to the benefit of the citizens and taxpayers of the County by lessening the … In developing the statute, the relevant committees spoke clearly and repeatedly about the purposes and reasoning behind the enactment and expansion of section 1102.5(b): to protect workers, to encourage disclosure, and to

Subsequent Injuries Fund v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board

2 Cal. 3d 56 · California Supreme Court · Feb 26, 1970

The court held section 5410 applicable, reasoning that it was "appropriate" to do so because, inter alia, the question whether an applicant can qualify for benefits from the Fund may not appear until months after the injury … The courts, therefore, in the five pivotal cases already referred to (see fn. 1, ante ), as well as in their progeny, have carefully and logically established within the framework of the compensation statutes, the roles of

People v. Merkouris

46 Cal. 2d 540 · California Supreme Court · May 25, 1956

Prior to the commencement of the trial itself, the court had before it an affidavit of a qualified psychiatrist in which it was averred, without any equivocation, that the defendant was medically and legally insane at the … All of these facts clearly indicated that defendant would be found sane upon any trial of the issue.

People v. Lewis

110 Cal. Rptr. 2d 272 · 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 decisionmaking processes. ( People v. Hedgecock, supra, 51 Cal.3d at p. 419, 272 Cal.Rptr. 803 , 795 P.2d 1260 .) Sally B.'

O.G. v. Super. Ct.

California Supreme Court · Feb 25, 2021

SUPERIOR COURT Opinion of the Court by Groban, J. 15 year old was alleged to have committed a qualifying offense].) … Instead, Proposition 57 was clearly aimed at providing the “ ‘ “ameliorating benefits” of rehabilitation (rather than punishment) . . . .’ ” (Lara, supra, 4 Cal.5th at p. 309.)

People v. Demolle

California Supreme Court · Jun 1, 2026

Failure to conduct further inquiry While maintaining that the record “clearly indicates” Juror No. 7 was subject to dismissal, defendant argues in the alternative that if we find “the record is insufficient to establish … DEMOLLE Liu, J., concurring and dissenting such “qualifiers.” (Bankston, supra, __ Cal.5th at p. __ (conc. opn. of Liu, J.).)

Searle v. Allstate Life Insurance

38 Cal. 3d 425 · California Supreme Court · Apr 4, 1985

App.3d at p. 616 ) is overbroad but is qualified by earlier statements which equate insanity with an inability to form the requisite suicidal intent. … The difference between the majority's remand and mine is clearly substantial, and will make itself felt here and in the future.