Case law

Lick v. Madden

25 Cal. 202 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1864

In determining, however, whether-^¡heljirul^icontp^^iil for by plaintiff is established in this Sta%. … The character of the initial act is clearly defined, and the function of performing it is as clearly devolved upon the Clerk. The case of People v.

Quinn v. Kenyon

38 Cal. 499 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1869

The township lines were established in 1854, and the townships were sectionized and the approved plats filed in 1855. … It fails to show that plaintiff was qualified to acquire a pre-emption right, or, if qualified, it fails to show that he took the necessary steps to acquire one, while it shows that *504 defendant took the necessary steps

Williams v. Corcoran

46 Cal. 553 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1873

Palmer, 31 Cal. 251 , clearly establish the proposition that the charge authorized by the Act to be imposed upon property within the district and the town is a tax. The language of the Act in question in People v. … , it is needless to say more here than that the provision in question is repugnant to section thirteen of Article XI of the Constitution—that the assessment is void, because it was not made by an Assessor elected by the qualified

People v. Konow

12 Cal. Rptr. 3d 301 · California Supreme Court · Apr 22, 2004

“receiving bona fide reimbursement for [the] actual expense of cultivating and furnishing” the substance to a qualified patient (Peron, supra, 59 Cal.App.4th at p. 1399 ), and dictum in Trippet , which stated that a qualified … Or, number two, what is clearly legal conduct in four communities of this state ha[s] been deemed illegal in this county.

City of Stockton v. Superior Court

68 Cal. Rptr. 3d 295 · California Supreme Court · Dec 3, 2007

Thus, it does not establish even a colorable estoppel claim. 10 Civic’s principal waiver argument is equally defective. … Superior Court, the parties do not question the propriety of writ review, and it was clearly appropriate here. (San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. Superior Court, supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 913 .)

Bannerman v. Boyle

160 Cal. 197 · California Supreme Court · Jun 8, 1911

Positive legislation changing established rules of law is not made in this manner. … Mechem says: “Where the appointment or election is made for a definite term or during good behavior, and the removal is to be for cause, it is now clearly established by the great weight of authority that the power of removal

W. H. Blodgett Co. v. Bebe Co.

190 Cal. 665 · California Supreme Court · Mar 23, 1923

and better ground assigned for it is that citizens ought not to be permitted or encouraged to deprive themselves of the protection of the courts by referring to the arbitrament of private persons or tribunals1, in no way qualified … courts have never hesitated to give full. effect to it ... ’ ‘When, as here, the agreement is, that the covenantor shall pay such sum, and only such sum, as shall be determined by arbitrators, the procuring an award is as clearly

City of Oakland v. Carpentier

13 Cal. 540 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1859

fixed on the second Monday in May in each year, and the term of office one year, and until their successors Avere qualified. … That an election for Trustees occurred in pursuance of the Act, but only four of them qualified as Trustees; and, at a meeting of the four persons so elected and qualified, a resolution, purporting to bo an Ordinance, Avas

LeBoeuf v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

34 Cal. 3d 234 · California Supreme Court · Aug 8, 1983

Dansker qualified as an expert witness. Mr. … In this case, petitioner’s permanent disability rating was established prior to a determination by the Bureau that he was not qualified to receive any vocational rehabilitation services.

People v. Bunn

27 Cal. 4th 1 · California Supreme Court · Jan 10, 2002

As noted, however, this does not mean that the activities of one branch are entirely immune from regulation or oversight by another. … Notwithstanding the foregoing analysis, the circumstances under which a judgment achieves finality and is therefore immune from legislative interference are clearly limited under Plaut .

Dow v. Gould & Curry Silver Mining Co.

31 Cal. 629 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1867

The laws required to be passed are such as will more clearly define her rights. … In our opinion the terms and language of the section will not permit the phrase “ and laws shall be passed more clearly defining the rights of the wife,” to be construed so as to read : “ And laws shall be passed more clearly

Daniel v. Smith

75 Cal. 548 · California Supreme Court · Apr 20, 1888

It is true that Cornfoot testified very clearly that the bank-book was actually placed in his hands by Fielding, and that he took it away and kept it till after Fielding died, and then delivered it to Mrs. Daniel. … In that case the donor had delivered a certificate of deposit into the hands of the donee, but the court s.aid: “This indorsement which accompanied the delivery *551 qualified it and limited and restrained the authority of

McClatchy v. Superior Court of Sacramento

119 Cal. 413 · California Supreme Court · Dec 27, 1897

Petitioner might not have been able to establish this defense, but he was not permitted to make the effort. When the case of the people rested this occurred: “Mr. Reddy. … The meaning is, that every citizen shall hold life, liberty, property, and immunities under the protection of general rules which govern society.” *420 And in the very recent case of Hovey v. Elliott, 167 U.

People v. Valdez

55 Cal. 4th 82 · California Supreme Court · Aug 9, 2012

I think clearly if the court looks at it carefully I will be able to show that Mr. … I don‘t want to – clearly, at this time as we sit here in court you have not established the unavailability of Mr.

People v. Berve

51 Cal. 2d 286 · California Supreme Court · Dec 5, 1958

Decisions holding that confessions are inadmissible because they were rendered under conditions of threatened mob violence by civilians against an accused clearly imply such conclusion. (Moore v. … Due process requires that it be given voluntarily and without promise of immunity or reward. On the record before us the confession here must be excluded.

Pierce v. City of Los Angeles

159 Cal. 516 · California Supreme Court · Mar 14, 1911

Y. 127 , in each of which cases it is established that ‘the court has no power, after judgment has been rendered against a plaintiff and pending an appeal therefrom, to grant an injunction in the same *518 action.’ … And it may also be conceded that a court, having once determined the issues in a case and rendered a judgment based upon findings clearly showing that no right to an injunction exists, and by an appropriate order has dissolved

Town of St. Helena v. Butterworth

198 Cal. 230 · California Supreme Court · Feb 25, 1926

M. for at least forty-eight hours in each and every week, or who is not in the sole employ of the proprietor of such an established place of business, shall pay a license tax of $15.00 per quarter in advance.” … He also invokes the provisions of section 21 of article I of the constitution of California, which provides that no citizen or class of citizens shall be granted privileges or immunities which, upon the same terms, shall

Wahl v. Waters

11 Cal. 2d 81 · California Supreme Court · Mar 29, 1938

In support of the first proposition there is evidence that on December 4, 1935, the board of directors adopted a resolution establishing a schedule of rates for the sale and service of water by the district. … apply in a case like the one at bar, where the requirements and purpose of the law have been disregarded and defeated, of their own volition, by the very officers intrusted with the performance of a public duty which was clearly

Rowland v. Christian

69 Cal. 2d 108 · California Supreme Court · Aug 8, 1968

Plaintiff also could establish, without contradicting Miss Christian’s affidavit or his admissions, that the crack was not obvious and was concealed. … , and the exceptions to those immunities, often do not reflect the major factors which should determine whether immunity should be conferred upon the possessor of land.

Johnson v. Greenelsh

47 Cal. 4th 598 · California Supreme Court · Oct 29, 2009

The terms of the trust called for the creation of three subtrusts: a survivor’s trust, including Florence’s interest in the community estate; a QTIP (qualified terminable interest property) trust, calculated to qualify for … If Greenelsh were to establish that Florence was incompetent to appoint a successor trustee and withdraw assets, the estate plan set out in the trust would be protected, not thwarted.