Case law

Pridonoff v. Balokovich

36 Cal. 2d 788 · California Supreme Court · Mar 5, 1951

By what legerdemain is an author immunized from general and exemplary damages when his libelous article is published in a newspaper, but is not so immunized when such article is published in a magazine, pamphlet or other … Even if the statute is susceptible of either construction, that given it by the majority decision raises serious constitutional questions not considered in the Werner case and hence the established rule applies that: "It

Locklin v. City of Lafayette

7 Cal. 4th 327 · California Supreme Court · Feb 28, 1994

Although the injury was to nonriparian landowners, the court applied the rules then governing the liability of upper riparian landowners to lower riparian owners and the decision has since been relied on as establishing immunity … Therefore, we do not assume, as do defendants, that the rule governing surface waters has no application here or that Archer established a rule granting immunity to an upstream riparian owner for damages caused as a result

Murphy v. E. R. Squibb & Sons, Inc.

40 Cal. 3d 672 · California Supreme Court · Dec 30, 1985

Moreover, the policy justifying the grant of immunity from strict liability to the practice of pharmacy would only be effectuated if the pharmacy operation itself is exempted. … Although we stated that the defendant manufacturers could cross-complain against other DES manufacturers not joined in the action, which might have supplied the injury-causing product, we were careful to qualify the statement

Fredericka Home for the Aged v. County of San Diego

35 Cal. 2d 789 · California Supreme Court · Aug 18, 1950

According to that accounting record, 21 new residents were admitted during the period covered, 16 of them under the policy of charging a minimum fee of $5,500 as established in November, 1944, the average fee being $6,264.04 … In the light of such guiding principles, the particular facts establishing plaintiff’s method of operation and function in the community must be considered.

Wiley v. County of San Diego

79 Cal. Rptr. 2d 672 · California Supreme Court · Nov 23, 1998

“Second, the rule is clearly intended to create a separate standard for clients represented in a criminal setting. … Second, this case does not present the question whether public defenders should be immune from malpractice suits under Government Code section 820.2, which grants immunity to public officials for discretionary acts.

Allen v. Elliott

177 Cal. 668 · California Supreme Court · Mar 5, 1918

such fact was clearly competent, in that its purpose was to show that such belief was not a delusion but founded in truth. … If, for no other reason, it was clearly competent for the purpose of impeaching the witness.

In Re Baycol Cases I & II

51 Cal. 4th 751 · California Supreme Court · Feb 28, 2011

Accordingly, “exceptions to the one final judgment rule should not be allowed unless clearly mandated.” (Ibid.) … This risk of immunity from review arose precisely, and only, because the individual claims lived while the class claims died.

Cabral v. Ralphs Grocery Co.

51 Cal. 4th 764 · California Supreme Court · Feb 28, 2011

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 … We conclude such an exception is not "clearly supported by public policy." ( Id. at p. 112.)

City of Fairfield v. Hutcheon

33 Cal. 2d 475 · California Supreme Court · Feb 18, 1949

It is clear, however, that this phrase refers to “qualified electors thereof” to make it plain that the vote required is not two-thirds of all the qualified electors but only two-thirds of those voting at the election. … There is nothing therein that compels a departure from the rule established by the City of Redlands and City of Sacramento cases, supra.

Assembly v. Deukmejian

30 Cal. 3d 638 · California Supreme Court · Jan 28, 1982

It clearly mandates the stay to preserve the effect of the people's will. … The correct test within this context is well established.

People v. Sanchez

12 Cal. 4th 1 · California Supreme Court · Dec 14, 1995

Reporter Immunity Under the California Shield Law a. … The above reasoning, while clearly based on practical grounds, does not foreclose a claim of immunity in the trial court by the nonparty witness during cross-examination.

People v. Dillon

34 Cal. 3d 441 · California Supreme Court · Sep 1, 1983

The case established for all practical purposes, that thenceforth a jury was immune from legal sanctions for rendering a perverse acquittal. … Under the circumstances the error clearly calls for a reversal. If three of my colleagues agreed with me, we would face a knotty problem of disposition: Reversal? Modification to second degree murder?

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.

Wenke v. Hitchcock

6 Cal. 3d 746 · California Supreme Court · Mar 2, 1972

“Voting registrars are public officers with the ministerial duty of permitting qualified voters to register. Mandamus is clearly the proper remedy for compelling an officer to conduct an election according to law. … Under our holding today, petitioner is clearly entitled to become a candidate for the office of supervisor of the First District.

People v. Schmitt

106 Cal. 48 · California Supreme Court · Jan 31, 1895

Because the request was not qualified, as above indicated, it was properly refused. (See, also, People v. Smith, 57 Cal. 130 .) … If once clearly and expressly given, it is sufficient. No other points are discussed in appellant’s brief, though other errors are specified in the record.

People v. Barragan

9 Cal. Rptr. 3d 76 · California Supreme Court · Jan 29, 2004

The so-called Three Strikes law prescribes increased punishment for a person who is convicted of a felony after sustaining one or more qualifying prior felony convictions or juvenile adjudications, which are commonly known … These well-established principles were at work in Mattson .

Treadwell v. Board of Supervisors

62 Cal. 563 · California Supreme Court · Aug 19, 1881

And whenever that intention clearly appears, the subsequent Act operates as a repeal of the former, although it contains no express words to that effect. … But it is claimed that such *565 would be the necessary result, because the present incumbents are entitled to hold their respective offices until their successors are qualified.

In Re Roger S.

19 Cal. 3d 921 · California Supreme Court · Jul 18, 1977

A child’s interest in liberty is qualified for very different reasons than is a parolee’s, but it is qualified, nevertheless, as the majority recognize. (Ante, p. 934.) … No court should presume that it is so immune from error that it may foreclose every means of challenging its decisions.

Bakke v. Regents of University of California

18 Cal. 3d 34 · California Supreme Court · Sep 16, 1976

The rights established are personal rights. … Frederick Douglass, the emancipated slave, perceived the problem clearly 130 years ago.

People v. Velarde

59 Cal. 457 · California Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1881

It is well settled that the Court may properly qualify an instruction, whenever a qualification is required to make it truly express the law. … It is a very common thing for witnesses to support by their evidence, the character of a defendant, or a witness whose testimony has been impeached, when it clearly appears in the course of the trial that the witness has