Case law

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

Los Angeles Unified School District v. Garcia

58 Cal. 4th 175 · California Supreme Court · Dec 12, 2013

We observe, and at oral argument the parties agreed, that when the Legislature incorporated section 48204‟s exceptions to the residency rule into section 56041, lawmakers clearly intended the reference to “emancipation” in … Viewing the statute through that broader lens, we conclude that our construction furthers the overarching purpose of the statutory scheme as a whole, which, as already discussed, is to ensure that there is a clearly designated

Thompson v. Mellon

9 Cal. 3d 96 · California Supreme Court · Mar 16, 1973

This sampling clearly establishes the belief of the voters of these cities that some substantial residential requirement is essential to qualify as a nominee for membership on the local governing board. … Are not the voters entitled to enact self-protective measures to obtain a qualified slate of candidates?

Western Coal & Mining Co. v. Jones

27 Cal. 2d 819 · California Supreme Court · Mar 28, 1946

Brizzolara, 56 Cal. 374 , 380: “The law, then, as now fully established both in England and in this country, clearly is: 1. That a debt barred by the Statute of Limitations may be revived by a new promise. 2. … There is nothing conditional or qualifying in defendant’s admission of liability.

People v. McKay

117 Cal. Rptr. 2d 236 · California Supreme Court · Mar 4, 2002

allegedly implicated was clearly established at the time the officer acted. … The rationale for this approach is a practical one: “if the policy of avoidance were always followed in favor of rating on qualified immunity whenever there was no clearly *609 settled rule of primary conduct, standards of

People v. Brenham

3 Cal. 477 · California Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1853

It is a first principle of law upon this subject, that if the words of a law, express clearly the sense and intention of the law, we must hold to that. … to establish that an election did take place, all the provisions of sect. 4, art. 2, must be kept out of view; and in order to establish the right of the relator to the office he claims, sect. 15, art. 4, must be disregarded

People v. Lopez

55 Cal. 4th 569 · California Supreme Court · Oct 15, 2012

[T]here is not a third category of witnesses, helpful to the prosecution, but somehow immune from confrontation.‖ (Melendez-Diaz, supra, 557 U.S. at pp. 313–314.) … What the high court said about the test results from the state drug lab in Melendez-Diaz is equally applicable to the notations on the log sheet from the county crime lab here: ―Forensic evidence is not uniquely immune from

People v. Wells

33 Cal. 2d 330 · California Supreme Court · Jan 25, 1949

Thus evidence of that condition would establish a total lack of intent, premeditation or malice-elements, the proof of which, is indispensable to establish guilt. … Clearly that testimony would be admissible to prove lack of premeditation, deliberation or malice.

Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. San Diego County District Council of Carpenters

25 Cal. 3d 317 · California Supreme Court · Sep 14, 1979

The original bill, drafted by union attorneys, clearly sought to limit the injunctive jurisdiction of the superior court. … Code, § 3534 (“Particular expressions qualify those which are general”); In re Johnson (1914) 167 Cal. 142 [ 138 P. 740 ].)

People v. Woods

35 Cal. 2d 504 · California Supreme Court · May 31, 1950

O’Keefe, who qualified as an expert on bookmaking practice, testified that the piece of paper was what is commonly called a “betting marker”; that the numeral “8” signified the 8th race; that “Sec. … It is clear that the offense thus defined is the maintenance of some type of bookmaking establishment.

Painless Parker v. Board of Dental Exam.

216 Cal. 285 · California Supreme Court · Sep 1, 1932

of the public, or any of the personal or property rights of its individuals, are endangered by the ownership and management of a dental office, so long as those employed therein to do the actual *304 dentistry work are qualified … He employed the petitioner and respondent herein to act as a chiropodist in connection with his said establishment and to give such treatment and perform such operations as only could be done by the holder of a regular chiropodist

Crest Catering Co. v. Superior Court

62 Cal. 2d 274 · California Supreme Court · Jan 22, 1965

There is also no merit in Kirsten’s contention that these sections do not make the information immune from discovery but merely make it privileged at the trial. … Inspection of copies of the tax returns is *279 clearly ‘1 necessary ’ ’ under these circumstances.

Mendoza v. Fonseca McElroy Grinding Co., Inc.

282 Cal. Rptr. 3d 369 · California Supreme Court · Aug 16, 2021

establishes that limitation. The effect of plaintiff’s proposal runs contrary to legislative intent. … Here there is no contention that mobilization qualifies as defined “public work.”

People v. Maury

133 Cal. Rptr. 2d 561 · California Supreme Court · Jun 18, 2003

Under such circumstances, defendant’s statements were clearly voluntary. 2. … The district attorney informed defendant that immunity had “not been granted to you,” that “you’re not being offered immunity,” and that “I don’t have the power to give you immunity anyway, you understand that.”

Turner v. Board of Trustees

16 Cal. 3d 818 · California Supreme Court · May 4, 1976

In Strumsky , a dual system of review was established. … The standard of performance in teaching algebra clearly relates to the welfare of the school and its pupils.

People v. Wilson

California Supreme Court · Aug 5, 2024

She was given immunity from prosecution for those crimes. … litigants who lack access to qualified habeas counsel]).

People v. Diedrich

31 Cal. 3d 263 · California Supreme Court · May 6, 1982

However, he could not produce time records establishing his employees’ hours. … Quite clearly it refers to offenses for which convictions might be had upon the proof adduced.” (Chaifetz, supra, 288 F.2d at p. 136 .)