Case law

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.”

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.

Britt v. Superior Court

20 Cal. 3d 844 · California Supreme Court · Mar 27, 1978

Accordingly, we reject defendant’s contention that the “nondissident” nature of the private associations in question immunizes the present discovery order from First Amendment attack. … Because of the constitutional interests at stake, however, the authorities establish that private association affiliations and activities such as those at issue here “are presumptively immune from inquisition. ...”

B.B. v. County of Los Angeles

California Supreme Court · Aug 10, 2020

But the doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from liability under section 1983 so long as their “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Such examples have led one federal judge to observe that qualified immunity has allowed “public officials [to] duck consequences for bad behavior — no matter how palpably unreasonable — as long as they were the first to behave

Guzman v. County of Monterey

46 Cal. 4th 887 · California Supreme Court · Jun 22, 2009

These actions clearly call for the exercise of the County’s discretion, and compel the conclusion that the County was not under a mandatory duty to act. … (C reason, supra, 18 Cal.4th at p. 630 [question of liability precedes that of statutory immunity].)

Preston v. Culbertson

58 Cal. 198 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1881

The inquiry was not simply whether they were registered, but whether they were, in other respects, qualified voters. … to his lands, or to his inclosure, as the same existed when the line was established.

People v. Haeussler

41 Cal. 2d 252 · California Supreme Court · Jul 7, 1953

They are inadmissible under the Due Process Clause even though statements contained in them may be independently established as true. Coerced confessions offend the community’s sense of fair play and decency. … This witness was qualified as an expert by evidence that he had been a speedometer mechanic for several years. No attempt was made by counsel for Mrs.

Castro v. State of California

2 Cal. 3d 223 · California Supreme Court · Mar 24, 1970

The judiciary was not immune from anti-Chinese prejudices. … Thompson (1969) 394 U.S. 618 [ 22 L.Ed.2d 600, at pp. 627-631 , 89 S.Ct. 1322 ], The contours of compulsion are not clearly discernible. Compare Korematsu v.

Price v. Civil Service Commission

26 Cal. 3d 257 · California Supreme Court · Jan 25, 1980

First, the purpose underlying rule 7.10 clearly accords with the objectives of title VII. … Accordingly, under Weber , the race-conscious remedial plan established in rule 7.10 clearly does not violate the antidiscrimination provisions of title VII.

People ex rel. McCauley & Tevis v. Brooks

16 Cal. 11 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1860

Justice Daniel which apparently question the doctrine previously established. … It establishes also the immunity of the county officers, if it establishes anything; for it is by the nature of the thing to be done, and not by the office of the person, that the propriety or impropriety of issuing a mandamus

McKannay v. Horton

151 Cal. 711 · California Supreme Court · Aug 19, 1907

We are clearly of the opinion that the statute will not bear that construction. … The decision in Treadwell’s ease was clearly right, but a loose and inaccurate expression occurs in the opinion which, if it were a correct statement of the law, might afford some support to respondent’s contention.

People v. Samonset

97 Cal. 448 · California Supreme Court · Mar 6, 1893

-was objected to by the defendant as immaterial and irrelevant, .and it is urged that it did not appear that the witness had had opportunities for observation sufficient to qualify him to testify. … and during all that time was a woman of good .character and good repute. .This evidence was objected -to by the defendant, so far as it related to the prosecutrix’s good reputation, upon the ground that it did not tend to establish

Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Superior Court

131 Cal. Rptr. 2d 1 · California Supreme Court · Mar 3, 2003

Accordingly, we shall review the certification ruling before us in light of the established standards for class certification generally. II. … Plaintiffs clearly are in a position to address some aspects of causation and damages on a class basis.

Professional Engineers in California Government v. Kempton

40 Cal. 4th 1016 · California Supreme Court · Apr 12, 2007

If the agency is unable to negotiate a contract with the most *1049 qualified firm at a fair and reasonable price, negotiations are terminated and the agency is directed to “undertake negotiations with the second most qualified … firm,” and then, failing that, with the “third most qualified firm.” (§ 4528, subd.

People v. Williams

49 Cal. 4th 405 · California Supreme Court · Jun 28, 2010

The witness no longer was in the custody of the Mexican police and was not mistreated by California police officers; he testified under a grant of immunity after consultation with independent counsel; the immunity agreement … As we have pointed out, however, Williams had received immunity from prosecution, and this immunity was not conditioned upon the consistency of her trial testimony with her first statement.

Legislature v. Deukmejian

34 Cal. 3d 658 · California Supreme Court · Sep 15, 1983

Under those circumstances, the normal arguments in favor of the “passive virtues” suggest that a court not adjudicate an issue until it is clearly required to do so. … IV, § 1), the once-a-decade rule had already been clearly established.

Artukovich v. Astendorf

21 Cal. 2d 329 · California Supreme Court · Dec 3, 1942

The principles set forth in these authorities are well established and clearly indicate that plaintiff’s contentions cannot be sustained. … Code, §41) nor does it make him immune from punishment for his criminal acts (Pen. Code, § 26).

In Re Graves

208 Cal. 57 · California Supreme Court · Aug 27, 1929

and had never qualified as executor. … Just what was to be the nature ' of his interview with Judge Reeve *61 does not clearly appear from the evidence.

L.A. Police Protective League v. City of L.A.

California Supreme Court · Jan 22, 2026

Those factors are clearly implicated here. … The parties do not dispute that the statute, which makes it a crime to file a knowingly false “allegation” of police misconduct and compels complainants to basis of qualified immunity.

People v. McInnis

6 Cal. 3d 821 · California Supreme Court · Mar 23, 1972

The fact that a tenuous link was forged between the illegal arrest and the robbery is more clearly “pure happenstance” in the case at bar than in Lockridge . … Defore (1926) 242 N.Y. 13, 21 [ 150 N.E. 585 ]) but would allow the criminal immunity because another constable in another jurisdiction in another case had blundered.