Case law

Jardine v. City of Pasadena

199 Cal. 64 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1926

body in fixing and establishing a certain block of land as a suitable site for the construction and maintenance of an isolation hospital clearly and palpably arbitrary and unreasonable? … “The location, establishment and maintenance of such an institution is clearly within the scope of the police power of the City.

West Publishing Co. v. McColgan

27 Cal. 2d 705 · California Supreme Court · Feb 27, 1946

It has not qualified to do intrastate business in California. [1a] During 1937, 1938 and 1939 it shipped books and other publications into this state pursuant to orders taken here by its employees. … The activities which establish its 'presence' subject it alike to taxation by the state and to suit to recover the tax." The judgment is affirmed.

People v. Lopez

261 Cal. Rptr. 3d 759 · California Supreme Court · Apr 30, 2020

and has another qualifying prior conviction as specified in that section. … (See, e.g., suffered a qualifying prior theft conviction and served a qualifying prior prison term, because such allegations would be relevant only to the uncharged section 666 petty theft with priors offense.

Oren Royal Oaks Venture v. Greenberg, Bernard, Weiss & Karma Inc.

42 Cal. 3d 1157 · California Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1986

In other words, Civil Code section 47(2) does not provide an immunity from ‘use’ of the publication.” … (See generally Veeder, Absolute Immunity in Defamation: Judicial Proceedings (1909) 9 Colum.L.Rev. 463.)

Fisher v. City of Berkeley

37 Cal. 3d 644 · California Supreme Court · Dec 27, 1984

The ordinance’s provision authorizing rent withholding and establishing a qualified defense to unlawful detainer actions regulates a field of great importance to the effective operation of defendants’ rent control scheme, … City of Houston: Local Governments and Antitrust Immunity (1983) 35 Baylor L.Rev. 791, 816-818; cf.

People v. Rivers

66 Cal. 2d 1000 · California Supreme Court · Jul 7, 1967

This interrogation clearly violated the prejudicial error rule established by Fahy v. Connecticut, 378 U.S. 85 [ 11 L.Ed.2d 171 , 84 S.Ct. 229 ], and Chapman v. … The fact that Rivers took the stand at his trial and repeated some but not all of the admissions did not immunize the error.

Union C. Co. v. Madera Canal & Irrigation Co.

179 Cal. 774 · California Supreme Court · Feb 18, 1919

should be liberal with the appropriate to the extent at least that it should not.deprive him of any portion of the amount of water that he had in fact used for the period necessary to gain title by prescription, unless it is clearly … The court below seems to have entertained the idea that the Merced judgment established a prima facie case in favor of the defendant’s right to divert 250-feet.

Mulford v. Le Franc

26 Cal. 88 · California Supreme Court · Jul 15, 1864

It is established by contract, by last will, and by prescription, *103 etc.” “ Usufruct—the right to use and enjoy the property of others; that is, to appropriate its fruits without impairing the substance.” … It was clearly within the province of this Court to construe the language of the instrument and from its language determine that question. . And this is precisely what we did.

Harpending v. Haight

39 Cal. 189 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1870

The functions of both the Legislature in making the law, and of the Executive in the exercise of the qualified veto power conferred upon him, must have been completely exhausted before the duty of authentication and deposit … language of a late commentator upon the law of mandamus, “the better doctrine seems to be that the Governor is not an exception to the general rule, that all public officers may by mandamus be compelled to perform an act clearly

People v. Tom

59 Cal. 4th 1210 · California Supreme Court · Aug 14, 2014

We conclude that defendant had the burden to establish that he clearly invoked the privilege here. A In Davis v. … But a defendant could easily eliminate any such risk by clearly and timely invoking the privilege.

Brewer v. Second Baptist Church

32 Cal. 2d 791 · California Supreme Court · Oct 1, 1948

This instruction was clearly erroneous, for a plaintiff is never entitled as a matter of right to exemplary damages. (Schomberg v. Walker, 132 Cal. 224, 230 [ 64 P. 290 ]; Davis v. Hearst, supra, 173 ; Lewis v. … A plaintiff, upon establishing his case, is always entitled of right to compensatory damages. But even after establishing a cáse where punitive damages are permissible, he is never entitled to them.

The Atkins Corporation v. Tourny

6 Cal. 2d 206 · California Supreme Court · Apr 30, 1936

Undoubtedly the intervener established a strong' prima facie case on the incompetency issue. … Cases of fraud are exceptions to the general rule that other offenses of the accused are not relevant to establish the main charge.

Landsborough v. Kelly

1 Cal. 2d 739 · California Supreme Court · Nov 1, 1934

It is clearly the purpose of this statute to make the choice of one or the other type of pavement (apart from engineering considerations), a matter to be determined by competitive bidding. … Petitioner contends that they establish either failure to exercise discretion, or a clear abuse thereof, justifying the issuance of the writ.

Soukup v. Law Offices of Herbert Hafif

46 Cal. Rptr. 3d 638 · California Supreme Court · Jul 27, 2006

LaMarche, supra, 31 Cal.4th at p. 735 [“[t]he Legislature clearly knows how to create an exemption from the anti-SLAPP statute when it wishes to do so”].) … Supreme Court held that ‘baseless litigation is not immunized by the First Amendment right to petition.’

Hunter v. Watson

12 Cal. 363 · California Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1859

which suggest that land titles should be made to depend upon written and record proof, with few exceptions, and to leave as little to paroi proof as possible ; and especially do we acknowledge the paramount importance of establishing … The other evidence introduced to show knowledge by Hunter of the deed from Glenn to Knox, was, taken alone, clearly insufficient. Wyatt v. Burnell, 19 Vesey, 435 ; Jolland v. Strainbridge, 3 Vesey, Jr., 478 ; Scott v.

MacGregor v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board

37 Cal. 3d 205 · California Supreme Court · Nov 8, 1984

The court concluded that these underlying facts established good cause for plaintiff’s quitting pursuant to section 1256 and that she was therefore entitled to receive benefits if otherwise qualified. … Sections 7003 and 7004 establish the methods by which a legally recognized relationship of parent and child may be established.

Moran v. Bonynge

157 Cal. 295 · California Supreme Court · Feb 7, 1910

It was also necessary to aver the facts which would make Davis a qualified purchaser. (Polk v. Sleeper, 143 Cal. 73 , [ 76 Pac. 819 ].) … This also is a conclusion of law, and clearly not the equivalent *300 of an averment of the facts necessary to show a valid application to purchase.

McWilliams v. City of Long Beach

56 Cal. 4th 613 · California Supreme Court · Apr 25, 2013

DISCUSSION The Government Claims Act (Act) “established a standardized procedure for bringing claims against local governmental entities.” … City of Los Angeles (1982) 31 Cal.3d 446, 463 [provision of the Act limiting immunity of a public entity to that “provided by statute” (§ 815) “does not include local ordinances or regulations”].)

People v. Baird

12 Cal. 4th 126 · California Supreme Court · Dec 21, 1995

Rather, defendant relies upon decisional law and the principle that legislative enactments should not be construed to overthrow long-established principles of law unless such an intention is clearly shown. … for an enhancement under section 667.5, it will a fortiori be noxious enough to qualify as ‘serious’ under subdivision (a) of section 667, and will almost always have resulted in a prison term.

White v. Davis

13 Cal. 3d 757 · California Supreme Court · Mar 24, 1975

The English historian, Sir Thomas Erskine May, writing in the middle of the 19th centuiy, observed: “Next in importance to personal freedom is immunity from suspicions and jealous observation. … Although defendant suggests that Anderson supports the trial court decision in this case, the cases are clearly distinguishable on several grounds.