Case law

In Re Mana

178 Cal. 213 · California Supreme Court · May 1, 1918

Two questions seem to be thoroughly settled by the unbroken line of decisions in all the states: First, that constitutional provisions guaranteeing the right to a trial by jury establish the right to a trial by a jury as … We do. hold, however, that this amendment points so clearly to the matter of sex as a question of qualification that the legislature was amply justified in dealing with the matter as such. Writ discharged.

People v. Barksdale

8 Cal. 3d 320 · California Supreme Court · Nov 22, 1972

Where, as here, even the latter are unable to comprehend the import of the standards, the woman clearly may complain of the act. … When one is engaged upon a course of conduct which is clearly criminal, the nature of the aggravation by which the law measures the degree of the crime may be defined by such qualifying words.

Becker v. Johnston

67 Cal. 2d 163 · California Supreme Court · Jul 28, 1967

[fn. 1] We have concluded that the county has successfully established the plan or design immunity found in Government Code section 830.6, [fn. 2] that the trial court correctly withheld from the jury the issue of Becker's … One of the purposes of a traffic count "is to establish the more important roads that have to be worked on, to establish the general routine of traffic throughout the County, to compute accident rates, this type of thing.

Kelly v. Methodist Hospital of Southern Cal.

95 Cal. Rptr. 2d 514 · California Supreme Court · May 11, 2000

; to receive endowments and to invest the same; to establish and maintain free beds for those unable to pay hospital charges; to maintain a dispensary; to establish and maintain branch hospitals and sanitariums; and to receive … That interpretation clearly ignores the structure of the statute itself, which predicates potential FEHA liability on the status of the defendant as an “employer.” (§ 12926.)

California Housing Finance Agency v. Patitucci

22 Cal. 3d 171 · California Supreme Court · Sep 18, 1978

Thus, our decision in Elliott established several principles. … Nonetheless, we affirm the Legislature’s interpretive efforts unless they are disclosed to be unreasonable or clearly inconsistent with the express language or clear import of the Constitution.

People v. Sloper

198 Cal. 238 · California Supreme Court · Feb 26, 1926

Certain decisions are cited wherein it was held to be error to instruct the jury that any fact “must be clearly established by satisfactory proof.” … To require a fact to be clearly established casts upon the actor a burden greater in degree than would be necessary to establish it by satisfactory proof.

Hoyt v. Board of Civil Service Commissioners

21 Cal. 2d 399 · California Supreme Court · Dec 23, 1942

The practice thus established is entitled to consideration and should not be overturned unless clearly unsupportable. (Cf. Golden Gate Bridge, etc. Dist. v. … (b) The establishment in each class in each office, department or bureau of the City or major *406 division established in and by a department having control of definite revenues and funds of a reserve list which shall consist

Nuckolls v. Bank of California

10 Cal. 2d 266 · California Supreme Court · Nov 27, 1937

Carey, as trustee, also filed a cross-complaint in which he sought to establish and foreclose his lien, as trustee, against the two-fifteenths of said trust estate. … Symonds was elected trustee of the estate of said bankrupt and subsequently qualified as such trustee, and was by order of the United States District Court in which said bankruptcy proceedings were pending directed to appear

Schwartz-Torrance Investment Corp. v. Bakery & Confectionery Workers' Union

61 Cal. 2d 766 · California Supreme Court · Aug 31, 1964

Although the court subsequently qualified its broad ruling in ThornMll by adopting a test permitting states to enjoin peaceful picketing for a purpose antithetical to some valid state policy, 3 the bedrock principle of ThornMll … under the Constitution from destruction, is not immune from regulation essential for the common good.

People v. Freeman

8 Cal. 4th 450 · California Supreme Court · Oct 24, 1994

That no doubt explains why she was given immunity for her testimony. … It knew Horton had been immunized, and could fully decide for itself if and how the grant of immunity affected her credibility. There was neither error nor incompetence. 9.

People v. Robinson

47 Cal. 4th 1104 · California Supreme Court · Jan 25, 2010

At the hearing on the motion to suppress, Konzak testified that he helped establish the FBI’s Combined DNA Index System (CODIS), which is software that compares qualifying offender samples to profiles collected at a crime … The statutory scheme that allows a qualifying arrest warrant to commence prosecution for purposes of the statute of limitations clearly incorporates the standards of particularity required by our state and federal Constitutions

County Sanitation District No. 2 v. Los Angeles County Employees' Ass'n, Local 660

38 Cal. 3d 564 · California Supreme Court · May 13, 1985

The result of the strike in the instant case clearly suggests the opposite. … As the aforementioned Pennsylvania Governor’s Commission Report concluded: “The collective bargaining process will be strengthened if this qualified right to strike is recognized.

People v. Perez

229 Cal. Rptr. 3d 303 · California Supreme Court · Mar 1, 2018

Hart began his testimony by telling jurors that he had been granted immunity from prosecution. … Jason Hart’s immunity agreement Perez claims the trial court and prosecutor vouched for the credibility of prosecution witness Jason Hart by disclosing a portion of Hart’s immunity agreement.

Sukeforth v. Lord

87 Cal. 399 · California Supreme Court · Jan 4, 1891

This, we think, wras not done, the court having given Instructions that should have been refused or qualified, and refused instructions that should have been given. … This shows very clearly that a sufficient exception was taken to the written requests to charge given and refused (McCreery v. Everding, 44 Cal. 249 ; Shea v. P. & B. V. R. R.

In Re Davis

25 Cal. 3d 384 · California Supreme Court · Sep 20, 1979

In only two cases was a possibly qualifying reason given in addition to the others: “lockdown situation.” … But otherwise the Rules establish apparently reasonable time limits, including extension for documented *397 extraordinary circumstances.

Costa v. Superior Court

39 Cal. Rptr. 3d 470 · California Supreme Court · Feb 16, 2006

Under such circumstances, the controlling decisions establish that precluding an otherwise qualified initiative or referendum measure from being placed on the ballot is not an appropriate remedy. … In reaching this conclusion, we emphasize that a crucial factor in our decision is that the proponents of the measure, in demonstrating how the *1029 discrepancy in this case occurred, clearly established that the discrepancy

Coan v. State of California

11 Cal. 3d 286 · California Supreme Court · Apr 19, 1974

An unconsenting state is immune from federal court suits brought by its own citizens and citizens of other states. (U.S. Const., Amend. XI; Edelman v. … The posture of the case before us clearly meets the test as defined in Ivy.

Woodward v. Fruitvale Sanitary District

99 Cal. 554 · California Supreme Court · Sep 26, 1893

This was clearly a sufficient designation of a name for the proposed district. … The statute in question is one coming clearly within the purview of the -legislative power.

People v. Benson

74 Cal. Rptr. 2d 294 · California Supreme Court · May 14, 1998

Each conviction individually would qualify as a strike. The question before us is whether defendant has one strike or two. … Each one of these crimes is a qualifying prior felony conviction for purposes of the Three Strikes law.

People v. Frahs

9 Cal. 5th 618 · California Supreme Court · Jun 18, 2020

relied upon by the People does not establish a contrary legislative intent. … But we agree with defendant that these findings do not conclusively establish that a remand would be futile.