Case law

Cooper v. Union Bank

9 Cal. 3d 371 · California Supreme Court · Mar 20, 1973

The court concluded that all defendants in the case, including payor *376 as well as collecting banks, qualified as representatives, had acted in good faith and in accordance with reasonable commercial standards, and had … Thus defendants were held immune from liability.

People v. Bell

49 Cal. 3d 502 · California Supreme Court · Sep 5, 1989

They qualified for hardship deferrals on that basis. … The prosecutor’s action was clearly misconduct whether or not it violated the stipulation. Dr.

Hopkins v. Anderson

218 Cal. 62 · California Supreme Court · Apr 26, 1933

It is a rule of statutory construction that a qualifying phrase is to be applied to the words or phrase immediately preceding. (36 Cyc. 1123.) … These facts, so found, sufficiently established appellants’ conversion of the property and rendered them liable in damages therefor. (11 Cor. Jur., p. 591.)

Aydin Corp. v. First State Insurance

77 Cal. Rptr. 2d 537 · California Supreme Court · Oct 14, 1998

Under a comprehensive general liability insurance policy such as the one at issue here, by contrast, the insured clearly bears the burden of establishing coverage. (See, e.g., Waller v. Truck Ins. … The fact remains: It is not un qualified. Therefore, it is qualified. It is certainly different from what is commonly called the "absolute pollution exclusion" (e.g., Croskey et al., Cal.

Harbor v. Deukmejian

43 Cal. 3d 1078 · California Supreme Court · Oct 13, 1987

Even so, the principles set forth there are clearly correct. … The Governor would clearly have had the power to veto section 45.5 if it had been passed by the Legislature as a separate bill.

People v. Dixon

24 Cal. 3d 43 · California Supreme Court · Apr 11, 1979

The second ground of the motion for mistrial was also not well taken, for the grants of immunity here involved were unconditional (cf. People v. … . *54 The remaining contentions advanced are clearly devoid of merit and we reject them without discussion. The judgment is affirmed. Tobriner, Acting C.

McKenzie v. Gilmore

3 Cal. Unrep. 886 · California Supreme Court · Jun 3, 1893

This was clearly erroneous. The facts being assumed, there was a complete dedication to the public. … The effect of the acts of Hickman, which show a dedication, cannot be qualified by evidence that he was induced to dedicate by his neighbor.

Scheiding v. General Motors Corp.

93 Cal. Rptr. 2d 342 · California Supreme Court · Mar 9, 2000

"`[T]he will of Congress upon the whole subject is as clearly established by what it had not declared, as by what it has expressed.'" ( Southern Ry. Co. v. R.R. Com., Indiana, supra, 236 U.S. at p. 447 , 35 S.Ct. 304 .) … Rather, a defendant seeking immunity must establish that permitting such remedies would frustrate congressional objectives in enacting the legislation on which the claim of preemption is based. Thus, in Silkwood v.

Merco Construction Engineers, Inc. v. Municipal Court

21 Cal. 3d 724 · California Supreme Court · Jul 25, 1978

Prior to enactment of section 90 it was well established that a corporation could not so appear. … Such person is clearly engaged in the practice of law in a representative capacity.

People v. Fields

35 Cal. 3d 329 · California Supreme Court · Dec 29, 1983

It is clear that groups defined by race, gender, or religion qualify. … The state first asserts the long established legislative preference for a single jury qualified to try both phases of the trial (see People v.

In Re Wilson

30 Cal. 3d 21 · California Supreme Court · Oct 8, 1981

If, however, the extinguishment of Indian title is qualified, or limited, that portion excepted from extinguishment survives. (United States v. Winans, supra, 198 U.S. 371 [see ante, at p. 29; State v. … The federal case law and the history of the federal government’s policy toward Indian title to California property clearly establish that the Pit River Indians retain no special hunting rights.

Curtis v. Board of Supervisors

7 Cal. 3d 942 · California Supreme Court · Sep 19, 1972

assessment, roll of the county are the qualified signers as herein defined. … Where there is more than one qualified signer with respect, to a parcel, the signature of any one qualified signer shall be sufficient to include the entire assessed value of the parcel.” 6 Some California statutes on annexation

People v. Boyer

42 Cal. Rptr. 3d 677 · California Supreme Court · May 11, 2006

Kennedy’s immunity agreement. John Kennedy testified for the prosecution pursuant to an immunity agreement. … Kennedy (2005) 36 Cal.4th 595, 612 [ 31 Cal.Rptr.3d 160 , 115 P.3d 472 ] .) 28 *455 Moreover, defendant’s argument on appeal is clearly meritless. Defendant has materially mischaracterized the agreement at issue.

People ex rel. Attorney-General v. Roach

76 Cal. 294 · California Supreme Court · May 28, 1888

Would the allegation—in any proceeding had within that time, —that there are no claims against the estate conclusively establish, upon demurrer or motion to dismiss, that no claims exist ? … Administration is clearly one of the “charges and trusts” to which the property would have been subject, if it had passed by succession.

People v. Garcia

87 Cal. Rptr. 2d 114 · California Supreme Court · Jul 29, 1999

may so qualify. … Under paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 667(d), the qualifying offenses are identified by reference to established external standards.

People v. Nagle

25 Cal. 2d 216 · California Supreme Court · Nov 17, 1944

The evidence adduced at the preliminary examination was clearly sufficient to establish that a public offense had been committed, and there was reasonable or probable cause for appellants’ commitment. … It has been held in some jurisdictions that a collateral benefit or boon, not relating to any phase of immunity, is insufficient to render a confession induced thereby inadmissible as involuntary. (State v.

People v. Belton

23 Cal. 3d 516 · California Supreme Court · Feb 28, 1979

That statement, presented during the testimony of Deputy Lugos, was sufficient to establish the accomplice status of Fouse by a preponderance of the evidence. … for which such evidence could be admitted with the enactment of Evidence Code section 1235, it neglected, through apparent oversight, to substitute a more inclusive word for the term “testimony” so that section 1111 might clearly

Barratt American, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cucamonga

37 Cal. 4th 685 · California Supreme Court · Dec 22, 2005

Although sections 66014 and 66016 govern these regulatory fees, they do not qualify as “development project” fees under section 66000. … As Barratt points out, if a fee was not challenged at its initial enactment, then the validity of all subsequent reenactments would be immune to judicial challenge or review.

San Diego Flume Co. v. Chase

3 Cal. Unrep. 792 · California Supreme Court · Feb 14, 1893

They are qualified by section 1639 of the Civil Code and section 1859 of the Code of Civil Procedure. … That the instrument in question here, can be so interpreted is manifest from the fact that its meaning was clearly ascertained and determined by this court.

People v. Sands

4 Cal. Unrep. 424 · California Supreme Court · Jan 3, 1894

Sands thereupon qualified and entered upon the duties of said office. … The constitution and statutes clearly distinguish between county organizations and governments and city organizations and governments. Bach have distinct legislative bodies and executive officers.