Case law

People v. D.B.

58 Cal. 4th 941 · California Supreme Court · Apr 3, 2014

In other words, a minor‟s eligibility for DJF depends entirely on whether the last offense he is found to have committed was a qualifying offense. (See V.C. v. … A minor who commits a string of violent acts would be immunized from a DJF commitment if the crime spree happened to end with a nonqualifying offense.” (Greg F., at p. 412.)

People v. Mancebo

117 Cal. Rptr. 2d 550 · California Supreme Court · Mar 11, 2002

However, when read in conjunction with subdivision (f) of section 667.61, the One Strike *745 law clearly applies only if the information alleges facts, and also the “circumstances specified in subdivision (d) or (e) which … If we were to agree with the People that there is no requirement for the multiple victim qualifying circumstance to be specifically pled in the information because it can be established from the mere fact of ultimate conviction

People v. Vasquez

108 Cal. Rptr. 2d 610 · California Supreme Court · Jul 5, 2001

One of the criminal convictions qualifying defendant as a sexually violent predator (id.., § 6600, subd. … The use of defendant’s Texas conviction under the SVPA clearly meets that description.

Allen v. McKinley

18 Cal. 2d 697 · California Supreme Court · Oct 3, 1941

They cite cases for the rule that administrative action of local boards is beyond judicial control unless abuse of discretion is clearly shown. (Maxwell v. … , and, if they pass, fully qualified to fill the position.

People v. Evans

29 Cal. 429 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1866

The different provisions of the statute, when taken together, clearly sustain this view. … They do not establish, or tend to establish a defense to the action, and there was no error in excluding the documents.

Limoneira Co. v. Railroad Commission

174 Cal. 232 · California Supreme Court · Jan 23, 1917

Ramsey was the sole stockholder, except as to shares held by others merely to qualify them as directors. … The effect of the provisions of our own constitution in this regard is so exhaustively and clearly stated in Leavitt v. Lassen Irr. Co., 157 Cal. 82 , [29 L. R. A. (N.

People v. Gray

66 Cal. 271 · California Supreme Court · Dec 22, 1884

All the facts constituting the offense, and bringing it clearly within section 504 of the code, are set forth in the information. … Such evidence is deemed admissible, whenever it is necessary to establish guilty knowledge.

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.

People ex rel. Graves v. McFadden

81 Cal. 489 · California Supreme Court · Nov 30, 1889

They are also to establish election precincts, and give thirty days’ notice by publication of the precincts established, designating the names and boundaries thereof; and also to divide the county into five supervisor districts … Section 15 clearly defines the distinction between the two as classes. It reads: “Private property shall not be taken or sold for the payment of the corporate debt of any political or municipal corporation.”

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

People v. Fuhrman

16 Cal. 4th 930 · California Supreme Court · Aug 28, 1997

With regard to the “brought and tried separately” issue, we conclude that a prior qualifying conviction need not have been brought and tried separately from another qualifying conviction in order to be counted as a separate … The plain language of the statute establishes what was intended by the Legislature. (See People v.

Hoyem v. Manhattan Beach City School District

22 Cal. 3d 508 · California Supreme Court · Oct 25, 1978

The intent of the Legislature is clear: when a school district fails to exercise reasonable care the immunity of this section evaporates. Defendant also relies on Castro v. … On the basis of this pleading, the issue of actual causation is clearly a question of fact for the jury.

Innis v. The Steamer Senator

1 Cal. 459 · California Supreme Court · Jun 15, 1851

The u lihode Island was not so moored, and no custom is so well “ established in this harbor as to be recognized as the law of the “ harbor.” … In the case above cited, Chief Justice Gibsok says, “ Indeed, the hoisting of a light is a precaution so imperiously d demanded by prudence, that I know not how the omission of *461 “ it could be qualified by circumstances

People v. Allied Architects Assn.

201 Cal. 428 · California Supreme Court · Jun 20, 1927

Neither do we perceive how, under the act, any special privileges or immunities are granted to any of the class of uneertificated architects which are not possessed by or extended to all. … The terms of the act show clearly that it was directed only to individuals as distinct from corporations.

Hanson v. Stinehoff

139 Cal. 169 · California Supreme Court · May 28, 1903

Bradshaw, 39 Cal. 44 , the court say: “It is clearly established, both by" reason and authority, that the acts of ownership and dominion over land which may be sufficient to constitute an actual possession vary according … If it should be conceded, therefore, that the instruction complained of should have been qualified or modified in some degree, it may be that the instructions omitted would have qualified or modified the one in question,

Western Steamship Lines, Inc. v. San Pedro Peninsula Hospital

8 Cal. 4th 100 · California Supreme Court · Jul 28, 1994

Nevertheless, the restitutionary nature of indemnification clearly emerged as a common thread. … Section 3333.1 clearly evidences legislative concern to foreclose possible circumvention of MICRA’s intended restrictions on liability for malpractice damages.

Weber v. McCleverty

149 Cal. 316 · California Supreme Court · Jun 21, 1906

A decision to that effect should not be made unless the terms of the statute clearly require it. . … In the Civil Code, however, we find its meaning clearly stated.

Galland v. City of Clovis

24 Cal. 1003 · California Supreme Court · Feb 5, 2001

Section 1983 establishes a federal remedy for persons who believe their federal rights have been violated. … Under the Supremacy Clause of the Federal Constitution, ‘[t]he relative importance to the State of its own law is not material when there is a conflict with a valid federal law,’ for ‘any state law, however clearly within

People v. Chavez

39 Cal. 3d 823 · California Supreme Court · Sep 19, 1985

Morrison was not qualified as an expert in the area in which he testified on rebuttal. … Morrison was qualified to give expert testimony on the issue of alcohol. In Brown v.

Meyers v. Merillion

118 Cal. 352 · California Supreme Court · Sep 23, 1897

They are designed to secure to the business of one *358 person immunity from rivalry and consequent damage at tbe bands of another who would be a dangerous competitor by reason of bis skill, energy, and popularity. … For it clearly appears that the inhibited agency is an agency wholly or partially for the conduct of the business.