Case law

Pasadena University v. County of Los Angeles

190 Cal. 786 · California Supreme Court · Apr 11, 1923

subject of the section under discussion is “Educational institutions of collegiate grade. ’ ’ These words are the antecedent of “used exclusively for the purposes of education” and under all rules or canons of construction qualify … “If words and sentences, and parts of sentences, having no very definite signification in their ordinary use, are employed and clearly intended to have a particular and definite meaning and application, and this appears from

American Toll Bridge Co. v. Railroad Commission

12 Cal. 2d 184 · California Supreme Court · Sep 27, 1938

the exercise of the rate-making power unless confiscation is clearly established. … And upon that question the complainant has the burden of proof and the coart may not interfere with the exercise of the state’s authority unless confiscation is clearly established.”

Abeel v. Clark

84 Cal. 226 · California Supreme Court · May 31, 1890

Clearly vaccination, and that only. This is also the subject of the act itself. … It is true that the term “vaccination,” in the title, is qualified by the adjective “general,” which makes it broad enough to include all the people of the state; while the body of the act relates to only a certain general

Jarrow Formulas, Inc. v. LaMarche

3 Cal. Rptr. 3d 636 · California Supreme Court · Aug 18, 2003

The Legislature clearly knows how to create an exemption from the anti-SLAPP statute when it wishes to do so. … In fact, “the anti-SLAPP statute neither constitutes—nor enables courts to effect—any kind of ‘immunity’ ....

Ferdig v. State Personnel Board

71 Cal. 2d 96 · California Supreme Court · May 8, 1969

*103 part of the civil service system established by the people (Cal. Const., art. XXIY; see Boren v. … board’s authority, the order is clearly void and hence subject! to collateral attack, and there is no good reason for holdingl the order binding on the board.

People Ex Rel. Scholler v. City of Long Beach

155 Cal. 604 · California Supreme Court · Jun 9, 1909

All this clearly implies that the special charter is .to apply only to territory already erected into a municipality, and it negatives the idea that the provisions of such special charters were intended to delegate to a city … its boundaries, and that “the boundaries so established by the board of supervisors shall be the boundaries of such municipal corporation until by action, authorized by law for the annexation of additional territory to,

Webb v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

28 Cal. 3d 621 · California Supreme Court · Dec 22, 1980

As amended in 1974, Labor Code section 139.5 establishes in qualified injured workers a right to vocational rehabilitation services and benefits, and a correlative duty in the Rehabilitation Bureau of the Division of Industrial … The duty in this case is even more clearly mandated than in Moyer .

People v. Vargas

59 Cal. 4th 635 · California Supreme Court · Jul 10, 2014

If, after having suffered two qualifying felony convictions, an offender commits a third qualifying 1 See Penal Code section 667, subdivisions (b)–(i). … Thus, ―the language of section 1170.12, subdivision (b)(1), unequivocally establishes that the electorate intended to qualify as separate strikes each prior conviction that a defendant incurred relating to the commission

Elder v. Doss

187 Cal. 415 · California Supreme Court · Nov 12, 1921

as required by the amending act of 1909, or by not less than fifty per cent of the qualified electors residing in the county, as required by such amending act. … The language in this respect is entirely permissive, being: “The legislature, by general and uniform laws, man/ provide,” etc., and clearly the case is not one where the word “may” can be read as “shall” or “must.”

Coito v. Superior Court

54 Cal. 4th 480 · California Supreme Court · Jun 25, 2012

Clearly, these statements would reveal nothing significant about the attorney‟s impressions, conclusions, or opinions about the case.” … Qualified privilege.

Hall v. Williams

2 Cal. 2d 186 · California Supreme Court · Dec 28, 1934

The terms of all" other county officers shall expire upon the taking effect of this charter, provided, however, that each shall continue to hold office until his successor has been appointed and has qualified.” … But the charter just as clearly avoids any language which might- be construed to safeguard their salaries.

Spaulding v. Desmond

188 Cal. 783 · California Supreme Court · May 26, 1922

Desmond, from July, 1913, up to the time of his death on December 27, 1921, was the duly appointed, qualified, and acting city clerk of said city. … Clearly, it is not a record of which this court can take judicial notice, or a certified copy of which would be admissible here.

People v. Douglas

50 Cal. 3d 468 · California Supreme Court · Apr 2, 1990

Henry Akers, who had known defendant for about 10 years, owned a furniture refinishing shop near defendant’s establishment. … Here, we find the above instances of prosecutorial argument, to the extent they involved any error, establish neither unreasonable performance on the part of trial counsel, nor do they establish prejudice.

Stony Hill Turnpike Road Co. v. Board of Supervisors

88 Cal. 632 · California Supreme Court · Apr 28, 1891

said order of *633 January 13, 1888, and no other order has been made since said last-mentioned date; that plaintiff has no speedy, plain, and adequate remedy at law; and that the defendants are the duly elected, qualified … the plaintiff, to establish rates of toll for its toll-road.

County of Los Angeles v. the Superior Court

87 Cal. Rptr. 2d 441 · California Supreme Court · Aug 12, 1999

Claiming qualified immunity under federal law, the defendants moved for dismissal of the complaint. … The high court added: “If petitioners’ claim to qualified immunity is meritorious, there is no suggestion that the application of the Idaho rules of procedure will produce a final result different from what a federal ruling

Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc.

100 Cal. Rptr. 2d 352 · California Supreme Court · Oct 5, 2000

Subsequent references to the Court of Appeal’s decision refer to the majority opinion unless the contrary clearly appears. … All these provisions strongly reinforce the inference that seniority provided no special immunity against layoff.

The People v. Dowl

57 Cal. 4th 1079 · California Supreme Court · Aug 29, 2013

While an appellate court may review the trial court’s decision, it may reverse only for an abuse of discretion and must uphold the ruling unless “ ‘ “the evidence shows that a witness clearly lacks qualification as an expert … In light of these principles, defendant, by failing to object, has forfeited appellate review of whether the evidence is sufficient to establish that Officer Williamson was qualified to testify as an expert that defendant

Heuler v. Rinehart

208 Cal. 498 · California Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1929

Heuler, in another proceeding, presented, with his petition for its probate, said so-called “marriage contract,” the validity of which as the last will of the deceased is established by our recent decision affirming the judgment … The nomination of the widow remaining unrevoked, in the absence of any ground for his disqualification, appellant is clearly entitled to administer the estate in preference and priority to any child of decedent or any other

County of Los Angeles v. Graves

210 Cal. 21 · California Supreme Court · Jul 16, 1930

From this provision it clearly appears that it was the intention of the legislature, as expressed in the plan of the California State Park Bonds Act, that moneys derived from the sale of state bonds shall be expended for … Under this rule, so petitioner argues, the phrase, “outside the limits of incorporated cities, ’ ’ refers to and qualifies the" phrase, “sites of historical interest,” immediately preceding it, and nothing else.

People v. Capers

251 Cal. Rptr. 3d 80 · California Supreme Court · Aug 8, 2019

The court then noted that the prosecution could offer Renteria transactional immunity. However, the prosecutor indicated that the People were not willing to provide immunity in the case. … The court stated that it would grant Renteria immunity if it had the power to do so in order to resolve the matter, and again asked the prosecutor if his office would grant the witness immunity.