Case law

Kuciemba v. Victory Woodworks, Inc.

California Supreme Court · Jul 6, 2023

The “general rule” of duty in California is established by statute. (Cabral v. Ralph’s Grocery Co. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 764, 771 (Cabral).) … “As we have also explained, however, in the absence of a statutory provision establishing an exception to the general rule of Civil Code section 1714, courts should create one only where ‘clearly supported by public policy

People v. Romero and Self

California Supreme Court · Oct 15, 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. Tran

California Supreme Court · Aug 29, 2022

, and all qualified persons must serve as jurors when summoned. … If that standard is to be abandoned or modified, and death qualifying the jury prohibited, it is up to that court to do so.”

Buss v. Superior Court

16 Cal. 4th 35 · California Supreme Court · Jul 24, 1997

This would not be the case if the policy itself provided for reimbursement: such a policy would qualify itself. … By using the words "suit" and "civil proceeding" the policy clearly and explicitly extends the defense obligation to the defense of entire actions, and not individual claims.

People v. Wilson

30 Cal. Rptr. 3d 513 · California Supreme Court · Jul 11, 2005

The jury clearly rejected defendant’s theory that he had no involvement in the murder and that he aided the robbery only after Anderson had already shot and killed Swader. … Apart from the prosecution’s assertions at the penalty phase, the record does not clearly support that the parties discussed that there would be victim impact evidence.

People v. Deen

California Supreme Court · Apr 6, 2026

“Except where bias is clearly apparent from the record, the trial judge is in the best position to assess the state of mind of a juror or potential juror on voir dire examination.” (People v. … It is the trial court’s obligation to ensure that those chosen to sit on a jury are qualified to do so.

People v. Snow

132 Cal. Rptr. 2d 271 · California Supreme Court · Apr 3, 2003

Defendant is clearly wrong: such a determination would satisfy only the first part of the two-part test outlined in Eubanks and Hambarian . … not further caution the jury that proof of motive alone was insufficient to establish guilt.

Pearson Dental Supplies, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County

48 Cal. 4th 665 · California Supreme Court · Apr 26, 2010

We conclude that the trial court and Court of Appeal are indeed correct that the arbitrator clearly erred in ruling that the employee's claim was time-barred. … This language establishes that what is being tolled is the running of the contractual limitations period itself, as plaintiff argues.

People v. McDaniel

283 Cal. Rptr. 3d 32 · California Supreme Court · Aug 26, 2021

In addition to these qualified terms, the education justification was, by the prosecutor’s own account, not the primary reason for striking Prospective Juror No. 28. … CALJIC 8.88 “clearly stated that the death penalty could be imposed only if the jury found that the aggravating circumstances outweighed mitigating.

People v. Gonzales and Soliz

52 Cal. 4th 254 · California Supreme Court · Jul 28, 2011

No evidence, however, established that Skyles and Price had been involved in the Gallegos murder. The mere fact Soliz shot them does not establish they were involved or even that they were gang members. … It is evidence which by itself, if found to be true, establishes the fact.”].)

Gomez v. Superior Court

29 Cal. Rptr. 3d 352 · California Supreme Court · Jun 16, 2005

It now is well established that commercial operators of elevators and escalators are carriers of persons for reward. ( Vandagriff v. J.C. … Clearly, with respect to its operation of the Indiana Jones ride, Disney did not expressly assume the character of a common carrier.

People v. Beardslee

53 Cal. 3d 68 · California Supreme Court · Mar 25, 1991

If the jury were to attempt to qualify the elements of guilt as an aider and abettor by including additional ingredients from CALJIC No. 8.20, the only likely prejudice would be to the prosecution, not the defense. … As the majority opinion acknowledges, the United States Supreme Court established in Brown v.

People v. Barrera

California Supreme Court · Jun 1, 2026

Upon review of the record, we conclude Barrera has not established a basis for reversal of the penalty. … Accordingly, we find that these remarks do not clearly evince an intent to require penalty reversals in pre-RJA cases based on nonprejudicial uses of facially neutral language.

People v. Hansen

9 Cal. 4th 300 · California Supreme Court · Dec 30, 1994

But it would not qualify under the present, more stringent definition, which requires "`a high probability' that death will result." ( People v. … The fact is established by the jury's guilty verdicts on second degree murder and discharge of a firearm at an inhabited dwelling house — which, under the evidence adduced and the instructions given, necessarily add up to

Williams & Fickett v. Cnty. of Fresno

218 Cal. Rptr. 3d 362 · California Supreme Court · Jun 5, 2017

Clearly, they were property of a nature taxable by defendants. [Citation.] … the plaintiff’s claim was that it had been taxed as if it was the owner of a fee interest in two parcels of real property, 20 when in fact at the relevant times it had only a “ ‘qualified

People v. Smith

233 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1 · California Supreme Court · May 21, 2018

The court agreed with the prosecutor that Elizabeth K. was likely to be the jury foreperson, describing her as “extremely qualified.” … Salazar held that Roper, supra, 543 U.S. 551, does not bar the use of a prior murder committed when the defendant was a juvenile as a special circumstance qualifying the defendant for the death penalty.

People v. Tacardon

302 Cal. Rptr. 3d 374 · California Supreme Court · Dec 29, 2022

It is well established that an officer’s show of authority towards others can communicate that the defendant is also not free to leave or terminate the encounter. In Brendlin v. … TACARDON Liu, J., dissenting Legislature has clearly taken note that there is a special threat to privacy presented by nighttime police intrusions.”].)

People v. Williams

California Supreme Court · Aug 29, 2024

Here, the voters clearly espoused the view that One Strike offenders “are the least likely to be cured and the most likely to reoffend, and they prey on the most innocent members of our society.” … mental traits and environmental 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 . . . are immune

People v. Cox

135 Cal. Rptr. 2d 272 · California Supreme Court · Jun 9, 2003

Defendant’s Statements to Darlene Darlene testified under a grant of immunity. … As a threshold matter, Joanna’s state of mind was clearly at issue in this trial.

Aguilar v. Avis Rent a Car System, Inc.

87 Cal. Rptr. 2d 132 · California Supreme Court · Aug 2, 1999

FEHA thus is clearly concerned with the content of harassing speech; hence, the injunction cannot be classified as content-neutral. … It is about a bafflingly elusive dream of equality and the freedom, not immune from abuse, to speak words that make others more than uncomfortable.