Case law

People v. Woodell

17 Cal. 4th 448 · California Supreme Court · Feb 11, 1998

One reason it gave is that “an appellate opinion is not always reliable to establish a foreign prior. … We do not hold that all appellate opinions will, alone, be sufficient to establish whether a prior conviction qualifies as a serious felony under the Three Strikes law, or even that all opinions will be relevant to the question

Whitehead v. City of Oakland

California Supreme Court · May 1, 2025

It is true, as the City asserts, that section 835 represents a limited waiver of immunity. … But a law established for a public reason cannot be contravened by a private agreement.” (See, e.g., Bickel v.

People v. Palacios

62 Cal. Rptr. 3d 145 · California Supreme Court · Jul 12, 2007

(b)(1)) “unequivocally establishes that the electorate intended to qualify as separate strikes each prior conviction that a defendant incurred relating to the commission of a serious or violent felony, notwithstanding the … where there is only one qualifying injury, it could have said so.”

People v. Ah Lee

60 Cal. 85 · California Supreme Court · Feb 10, 1882

It seems to us that this instruction is clearly erroneous. … Roseoe says: "These two cases are difficult to reconcile with established principles.

In Re King

3 Cal. 3d 226 · California Supreme Court · Oct 2, 1970

The testimony clearly established that King had been absent from the state for more than the statutory period. … It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized . . . [T]he right finds no explicit mention in the Constitution.

Cristina v. Mattenberger

212 Cal. 670 · California Supreme Court · May 29, 1931

A qualified endorser, however, is limited as the terms of endorsement indicate. … The evidence clearly proves that Frank Mattenberger’s endorsement on the back of the promissory note did not make him a general endorser, but that said endorsement was qualified, that is, that it was a mere assignment for

Stang v. City of Mill Valley

38 Cal. 2d 486 · California Supreme Court · Feb 21, 1952

This act constitutes more than a mere waiver of sovereign immunity which the court considered in the Steitz case. No exceptions are provided in this act. … condition dangerous or defective and liable to cause some injury to the general public', and that the section was 'designed not for the safety, particularly, either of licensees or invitees. ...' " There being a duty thus established

Stevenson v. Superior Court

16 Cal. 4th 880 · California Supreme Court · Aug 27, 1997

In addition, the Hospital may not reasonably claim lack of notice that age discrimination would result in liability, nor is it the beneficiary of any statutory grant of immunity. … On both of these points, the Legislature has clearly spoken.

Unruh v. Truck Insurance Exchange

7 Cal. 3d 616 · California Supreme Court · Jul 21, 1972

Thus, if the insurer is to be invested with the employer’s immunity under section 3601, that immunity is to be derived from sections 3850 and 3852. (Cf. State Comp. Ins. Fund v. … Without qualifying Redner in any way, we conclude that what we there said cannot transform the negligence count into something the pleader did not intend.

People v. Clark

63 Cal. 4th 522 · California Supreme Court · Jun 27, 2016

In fact, Weaver‘s immunity hearing on Tuesday, April 2, 1996, was reported and is included in the record. Moore‘s immunity hearing, however, does not appear to be in the record. … Yet we also concluded that armed robbery, by itself, did not qualify. (Ibid.)

Kimmel v. Goland

51 Cal. 3d 202 · California Supreme Court · Jul 12, 1990

Clark, supra, 38 Cal.3d 355 , for the proposition that section 47(2) immunizes them from liability. … To the extent the complaint rests on Parnell’s alleged communicative acts of “counseling” and “advising” his clients, the privilege is clearly operative. (See Silberg v.

Bogacki v. Board of Supervisors

5 Cal. 3d 771 · California Supreme Court · Oct 8, 1971

The question remains, however, whether the fact that the record fails to establish a specific cause for dismissal is pertinent to this proceeding. … Clearly, the Director’s power to remove “for cause satisfactory to himself” would have become chimerical.

Page v. Fowler

37 Cal. 100 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1869

their claim to the pre-emptions was clearly admissible and competent, in connection with proof of their entry in October, 1862, and actual possession of the premises up to the time when the hay was cut in 1863, to show that … It is not material whether, in point of fact, they were qualified pre-emptors or not, provided they entered believing in good faith that they wore entitled to pre-empt the land, and entered for that purpose.

California Teachers Ass'n v. Governing Board of Rialto Unified School District

14 Cal. 4th 627 · California Supreme Court · Jan 2, 1997

One cannot qualify for a coaching position simply by possessing a teaching credential. … under the established standards.

Hoff v. Vacaville Unified School District

80 Cal. Rptr. 2d 811 · California Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1998

Only if these points are answered in the affirmative does the question of governmental immunity arise. … such immunity.”

Warfield v. Peninsula Golf & Country Club

10 Cal. 4th 594 · California Supreme Court · Jun 29, 1995

Indeed, hospitals are often nonprofit organizations, and they are clearly business establishments to the extent that they employ a vast array of persons, care for an extensive physical plant and charge substantial fees to … Although the 1959 enactment of the current version of section 51 clearly was intended to expand the reach of the 1897 statute, the Legislature’s adoption of language making the statute applicable to “all business establishments

People v. Henderson

301 Cal. Rptr. 3d 243 · California Supreme Court · Nov 17, 2022

Offenses arise “from the same set of operative facts” when they “shar[e] common acts or criminal conduct that serves to establish the elements of the current felony offenses of which defendant stands convicted.” (Ibid.) … Had the drafters intended to change sentencing discretion in the same occasion/operative facts context, the drafters were clearly aware of how to make that intent clear.

State of California v. Allstate Ins. Co.

45 Cal. 4th 1008 · California Supreme Court · Mar 9, 2009

But the evidence here did not establish that level of probability. … to grant Insurers’ alternative motion for summary adjudication establishing that the 1978 discharge was excluded by the qualified pollution exclusion.

Low v. Hutchings

41 Cal. 634 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1871

If the grant had been wholly unconditional and absolute in terms, and had taken effect in presentí, it would have been clearly void for want of power in the Legislature to make it. … Whatever consideration these proceedings may be entitled to at the hands of the Commissioners, as an argument why they should forbear, for the present, to press their demand for the possession, it is clear that they establish

Alameda County Social Services Agency v. Kimberly H.

28 Cal. 4th 56 · California Supreme Court · Jun 6, 2002

The evidence clearly supported the juvenile court’s conclusion, the Court of Appeal held, that Kevin W.’s presumption was entitled to greater weight than Mario A.’s. … Such being the case, subdivision (b) of that statute was clearly controlling: ‘The presumption [that a man is the natural father of a child] is rebutted by a court decree establishing paternity of the child by another man