Case law

Estate of Fleming

31 Cal. 2d 514 · California Supreme Court · Mar 9, 1948

The State Controller has appealed from an order of the probate court declaring that no inheritance tax was payable in connection with a testamentary trust fund established for educational purposes. … The language of the statute creating the exemption in question clearly evidences the legislative intent that the limitation as to "use within this state" must be expressed by the terms of the testamentary bequest.

Welch v. Ware

161 Cal. 641 · California Supreme Court · Dec 21, 1911

He qualified as such and has since continued to perform the duties of such fire warden. … Mechem says: ‘Where the appointment or election is made for a definite term or during good behavior, and the removal is to be for cause, it is now clearly established by the great weight of authority that the power of removal

Murgia v. Municipal Court

15 Cal. 3d 286 · California Supreme Court · Sep 24, 1975

a prima facie case of discriminatory enforcement of the laws. 3 Nonetheless, the court denied defendants’ discovery motion, apparently because it felt that existing California decisions did not clearly establish that a defense … At the same time, however, the Oyler decision clearly indicates that if a defendant does establish that the prosecuting authorities, in administering a statute, have followed an enforcement policy “deliberately baséd upon

Tammen v. County of San Diego

66 Cal. 2d 468 · California Supreme Court · Apr 26, 1967

The trial court felt that her physical incapacity was clearly established but that this disability was not the reason for her failure to file the claim; in other words, her ignorance of the cause of her injury was a contributing … Neither our decision in Muskopf nor the subsequent moratorium measure reinstating governmental immunity (Civ.

Aggeler v. Dominguez

217 Cal. 429 · California Supreme Court · Feb 24, 1933

By section 15 of said act the term of office of each judge of a municipal court was fixed at six years, or until his successor is elected and qualifies. … Brenham, 3 Cal. 477, 487 , we find the following statement of the law: “We should not extend official terms beyond the time clearly defined, but rather by implication, if necessary, shorten the duration of a term, than prolong

People v. Banks

61 Cal. 4th 788 · California Supreme Court · Jul 9, 2015

Plainly, armed robbery does not qualify. … If Enmund‘s actions represented the outer limit of conduct immune from death eligibility, Tison would have been an easy case. It was not.

People v. Anderson

43 Cal. 3d 1104 · California Supreme Court · Oct 13, 1987

None, as we shall explain, establishes reversible error. A. … Article I, section 27, of the California Constitution declares that law immune from state constitutional challenge.

People v. Warner

47 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1 · California Supreme Court · Aug 10, 2006

The People resist the interpretation of Nebraska Revised Statutes section 28-318(5) that requires proof only of general intent to establish the crime of child sexual assault, but their arguments are unpersuasive. … Moreover, the two examples of criminal conduct— residential burglary and furnishing drugs to a minor—were clearly criminal conduct. In short, nothing in Murphy, supra, 25 Cal.4th 136 , or in People v.

The Times-Mirror Co. v. Superior Court

15 Cal. 2d 99 · California Supreme Court · Jan 31, 1940

And, as very clearly appears from this and other proceedings, the two rights frequently come into conflict. … The position maintained by the Times over many years on these matters is clearly established by the record.

Tulare Water Co. v. State Water Commission

187 Cal. 533 · California Supreme Court · Dec 12, 1921

The purpose of the act is clearly to permit any person or corporation desiring to make any of the enumerated beneficial uses of waters of the state, not otherwise utilized, to avail itself of this right of appropriation. … If the fact exists, and is established by sufficient proofs, it is his legal duty to be satisfied, and to act accordingly.” In Iglin v.

People v. Jablonski

38 Cal. Rptr. 3d 98 · California Supreme Court · Jan 23, 2006

Preliminarily, we agree that "[t]he right to counsel clearly applies to the type of competency proceedings with which we are here concerned." ( Baqleh v. … Thus, defendant maintains, he was required to establish that his "incapacity to distinguish right from wrong had to be thoroughgoing, complete, and absolute in order to establish legal insanity for the charged crime."

People v. Leach

41 Cal. 3d 92 · California Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1985

Instruction on Testimony of Immunized Witnesses The trial court properly instructed the jury on witnesses and accomplices. … [Mere presence at the scene of a crime and failure to take steps to prevent a crime do not in themselves establish aiding and abetting.]”

Howland v. Oakland Consolidated Street Railway Co.

110 Cal. 513 · California Supreme Court · Dec 18, 1895

Under these circumstances the court below was not only justified in deny *518 ing the motion, but we think its ruling in that regard was clearly correct. 2. … We cannot say the court abused its discretion in holding that the witness McCarthy had shown himself sufficiently qualified to answer the hypothetical question, tending to elicit his opinion as to whether ihe car of appellant

Hyatt v. Argenti

3 Cal. 151 · California Supreme Court · Apr 15, 1853

or limited in any manner, or controlled by an agreement between the parties to the contract, that fact must be established. … , if it establishes anything, what the defendant fully concedes.

Carl FW Borgward, GMBH v. Superior Court

51 Cal. 2d 72 · California Supreme Court · Oct 24, 1958

Moreover, by excluding acts done by a foreign corporation in this state in interstate or foreign commerce from its definition of the words “transact intrastate business,” it clearly recognized that a corporation may do business … Section 407 thus referred only to the acts required to qualify to conduct intrastate business and made clear that foreign corporations engaged solely in interstate or foreign commerce were not required so to qualify.

People v. Piper

42 Cal. 3d 471 · California Supreme Court · Aug 21, 1986

Although the subdivision does not expressly speak in terms of “personal use,” its syntax clearly suggests that it was intended to apply only to cases in which the defendant himself uses a firearm. … We recognize that if “personal use” is required for both subdivision (c)(8) and subdivision (c)(23), any offense that qualifies as a “serious felony” under the use-of-a-firearm portion of subdivision (c)(8) will also qualify

Lubetzky v. State Bar

54 Cal. 3d 308 · California Supreme Court · Aug 30, 1991

Taylor: Communications to Police with Absolute Immunity: Revenge Courtesy of Civil Code Section 47(2) (1986) 18 U. West L.A. L.Rev. 51].) … The bulk of civil proceedings brought by individuals would qualify for reprimand under this rubric.

Save the Plastic Bag Coalition v. City of Manhattan Beach

52 Cal. 4th 155 · California Supreme Court · Jul 14, 2011

Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15061(b)(3)), and because it qualified as a regulatory program to protect the environment (id., § 15038). … Clearly, they have a “particular right to be preserved or protected over and above the interest held in common with the public at large.” (Carsten v. Psychology Examining Com., supra, 27 Cal.3d at p. 796.)

People v. Equarte

42 Cal. 3d 456 · California Supreme Court · Aug 21, 1986

With respect to the count on which he was convicted, the jury found that the great bodily injury allegation had not been established. … since the evidence at trial clearly demonstrated that there had been no accomplice in this case.

Chamberlain v. Southern California Edison Co.

167 Cal. 500 · California Supreme Court · Mar 26, 1914

To hold otherwise would be to give to an artificial person immunity not enjoyed by a natural one. A corporation acts through its officers and servants. … established in favor of plaintiff.