Case law

DaFonte v. Up-Right, Inc.

2 Cal. 4th 593 · California Supreme Court · May 4, 1992

Amended section 1431 establishes a presumption that “[a]n obligation imposed upon several persons ... is presumed to be joint, *600 and not several, except as provided in Section 1431.2 ....’’ (Italics added.) … The statute neither states nor implies an exception for damages attributable to the fault of persons who are immune from liability or have no mutual joint obligation to pay missing shares.

McKesson v. Donaghue

23 Cal. 2d 821 · California Supreme Court · Mar 23, 1944

On March 2, 1944, the petitioner duly qualified as *833 Judge of the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles. … Every qualified citizen had a right to file within that period; none is given a right to file at any other time.

Snively v. Record Publishing Co.

185 Cal. 565 · California Supreme Court · Apr 25, 1921

The language of the code clearly implies that the publication may be privileged, although it is untrue. … This is the established law in many cases of privilege and no question is ever made about it.

Moore v. Regents of University of California

51 Cal. 3d 120 · California Supreme Court · Jul 9, 1990

Our analysis begins with three well-established principles. … Moore’s Claim Under Existing Law (7) “To establish a conversion, plaintiff must establish an actual interference with his ownership or right of possession. . . .

People v. Coleman

13 Cal. 3d 867 · California Supreme Court · Apr 3, 1975

Wolff also added support to Palmigiano’s implicit minor premise: that because use immunity greatly aids the inmate in his defense while imposing little consequent burden on the state, such immunity may appropriately be required … Once the fact of official misconduct has been established, the defendant also bears the burden of establishing a prima facie causal link between the “primary illegality” and any secondary evidence allegedly derived therefrom

Ex parte Liddell

93 Cal. 633 · California Supreme Court · Mar 19, 1892

It is not simply an act to establish a school, but a school for juvenile offenders. … The Colorado case, upon which- he places his chief reliance, is clearly distinguishable from the case before us.

Adams v. Bradley

99 Cal. 216 · California Supreme Court · Aug 11, 1893

Patterson ever qualified as the guardian of Mrs. … Patterson in feet qualified as her guardian.

Solari v. Show

101 Cal. 387 · California Supreme Court · Feb 24, 1894

The complaint in that action contained the allegation, among others, that said Domingo Grondoma was “at all the times hereinafter mentioned the' duly appointed, qualified and acting administrator, and trustee, of the estate … The complaint was clearly inadmissible as evidence for either purpose, for the reason that it was unverified and not signed by the plaintiff therein, and not shown that he had any knowledge of its contents.

Pixley v. The Western Pac. R.R.

33 Cal. 183 · California Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1867

President with the plaintiffs, we find that it relates entirely to the mode and manner of contracting, which it is claimed for the defendant is in effect prescribed by the statute, negatively if not affirmatively, by the immunity … The case here cited clearly distinguishes between contracts executory and executed, recognizing the doctrine that so long as a contract remains entirely executory the party who seeks to recover merely for non-performance

Foscalina v. Doyle

47 Cal. 437 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1874

.: It is clearly established by the evidence that the defendants, when they entered upon the demanded premises, intruded upon the actual possession of the plaintiff, which he held as a tenant under Hough & Harlan. … The defendants seek to justify their entry on the ground that the land was a part of the public domain of the United States, which was then subject to pre-emption; and that, being qualified pre-emptioners, they entered in

Wells v. One2One Learning Foundation

48 Cal. Rptr. 3d 108 · California Supreme Court · Aug 31, 2006

As we have indicated, the charter schools here are operated, pursuant to the CSA, by corporations that, for purposes of the CFCA, do not qualify as public entities. … (b)) clearly are exempt. The same rule appears applicable to qui tarn actions by “persons” under the CFCA.

People v. Phillips

41 Cal. 3d 29 · California Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1985

The facts were established at a hearing on defendant’s motion to suppress. (§ 1538.5.) … It was therefore clearly in defendant’s interests to eliminate all of these witnesses before they had a chance to testify at his trial.

People v. Harrison

57 Cal. 4th 1211 · California Supreme Court · Oct 31, 2013

Accordingly, we will not overturn the Board‟s definition of the section 2962 criteria “ „ “unless clearly erroneous.” ‟ ” (Sara M. v. Superior Court, supra, 36 Cal.4th at p. 1012.) No clear error appears. … Absent a timely objection, the People have no obligation to present evidence establishing venue in a criminal prosecution.

County of San Mateo v. DELL J.

46 Cal. 3d 1236 · California Supreme Court · Oct 31, 1988

Qualified foster care facilities to which AFDC-FC support payments may be made on behalf of qualified minors are further defined to ensure compliance. (§ 11400.) … Section 11462 authorizes the Department of Social Services to establish a rate schedule of “allowable costs” at qualifying foster care facilities for which AFDC-FC funds may be expended on behalf of children placed therein

County of Los Angeles v. Southern California Telephone Co.

32 Cal. 2d 378 · California Supreme Court · Aug 13, 1948

The ease, however, is clearly distinguishable. … or immunities which, upon the same terms, shall not be granted to all citizens.”

People Ex Rel. Roddis v. California Mutual Ass'n

68 Cal. 2d 677 · California Supreme Court · Jun 3, 1968

The immunity of health plans to regulation was recognized in 1946 when this court decided the ease of California Physicians’ Service v. … A finding that the principal object and purpose of a plan is direct service merely establishes that the indemnity feature is not dominant, yet, a substantial minority of the members may face liability without the security

Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. Heriberto C.

32 Cal. 4th 588 · California Supreme Court · Mar 1, 2004

The legislative history of these provisions clearly supports my conclusion. … Based on his conduct over the entire relevant period, Heriberto clearly qualifies for constitutional protection, even assuming, as the majority does, he did not take steps to formalize his paternal relationship.

City of Montebello v. Vasquez

1 Cal. 5th 409 · California Supreme Court · Aug 8, 2016

(2003) 31 Cal.4th 728, 735 [ 3 Cal.Rptr.3d 636 , 74 P.3d 737 ], that the plain language of section 425.16 is to be respected and that exceptions to the statute’s broad reach must not be lightly implied: ‘The Legislature clearly … The City of Colton court rejected the city’s claim that its cross-action qualified for the public enforcement exemption.

Ainsworth v. Bryant

34 Cal. 2d 465 · California Supreme Court · Nov 23, 1949

In view of such explicit provisions establishing that “the tax [is] on the retailer and not on the consumer” (Meyer Const. Co. v. … Under well-settled legal principles, immunity from such a general taxing measure must be clearly established (2 Cooley on Taxation (4th ed.), § 672, p. 1403; Ramaley v. City of St.

Otto v. Protective

75 Cal. 308 · California Supreme Court · Mar 21, 1888

A violation of such of the established rules of the association as have been subscribed or assented to by the members, and as provide expulsion for such violation; 2. … For such conduct as clearly violates the fundamental objects of the association, and if persisted in and allowed would thwart those objects or bring the association into disrepute.