Case law

Cal Fire Local 2881 v. Cal. Pub. Employees' Retirement System

California Supreme Court · Mar 4, 2019

Constitutional protection can arise, however, (1) when the statute or ordinance establishing a benefit of employment and the circumstances of its enactment clearly evince an intent by the relevant legislative body to create … Once other public employees had served the five years necessary to qualify to receive a pension, they were also qualified for full rights under section 20909.

Stone v. Alameda Health System

California Supreme Court · Aug 15, 2024

Like the rule, the caveat is well established. … We then consider whether AHS qualifies as a public entity.

Union of Medical Marijuana Patients v. City of San Diego

California Supreme Court · Aug 19, 2019

(c)(3) [if a proposed activity does not qualify as a project, it “is not subject to CEQA”].) … We began our analysis by recognizing that “no California locality is immune from the legal and practical necessity to expand housing due to increasing population pressures.” (Id. at p. 383.)

People v. Plummer

9 Cal. 298 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1858

They furnish a strong case, and bring it fully within the authorities cited, and hence establish the incompetency of the juror. … The testimony of the witnesses corroborate the statement in the affidavits, and, we think, clearly establish that such a declaration was made by the juror. In the testimony there is but little conflict.

People v. Foster

California Supreme Court · Aug 22, 2019

We found it “significant” that “subdivisions (a) and (f) of section 1170.18 both clearly reflect an intent to have full retroactive application, whereas subdivision (k) uses no similar language.” (Id. at pp. 880, 881.) … The distinctive structure of the commitment statute at issue in Bevill has no parallel here, and that case did not establish a rule applicable in Foster’s case.

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

In re Milton

13 Cal. 5th 893 · California Supreme Court · Aug 22, 2022

We did not merely “explain or refine the holding of a prior case, . . . apply an existing precedent to a different fact situation, . . . or . . . draw a conclusion that was clearly implied in or anticipated by previous opinions … (Guerra, supra, 37 Cal.3d at p. 399 [listing “common examples of decisions that do not establish a new rule of law”].) C.

Ex Parte McLaughlin

41 Cal. 211 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1871

Court, upon the sole ground that the jury, after mature deliberation, *214 report their inability to agree upon a verdict, is a discharge without legal cause, and entitles petitioner to a release from custody and perpetual immunity … Such facts are only required to be established beyond a reasonable doubt.

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.

Stacy Bros. Gas Construction Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission

197 Cal. 164 · California Supreme Court · Sep 28, 1925

The control and direction exercised by the special employer in that case clearly differentiates it from the instant case. In Famous Players Lasky v. Industrial Acc. … No. 8323, there was such an exercise of direction and control as to establish the special employment found by the Commission.

Drinkhouse v. Van Ness

202 Cal. 359 · California Supreme Court · Oct 31, 1927

It stands out clearly as an order purporting to “amend,” that is to change, an order previously made. … The reasons for this rule are clearly stated in California Jurisprudence (vol. 5, p. 208).

People v. Hanson

97 Cal. Rptr. 2d 58 · California Supreme Court · Jun 19, 2000

Walker (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1013, 1024 , 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 902 , 819 P.2d 861 [restitution fine "qualifies as punishment" for purpose of enforcing plea bargain]; People v. … The defendant receives no immunity from punishment; society is simply limited to exacting the penalty previously imposed.

Davoust v. City of Alameda

149 Cal. 69 · California Supreme Court · Mar 30, 1906

The distinction is clearly stated in the principal opinion. … justice that it should be made possible by any system of jurisprudence that one should receive an injury at the hands of another who is subject to be sued in every ordinary form of action, and that that other should have immunity

Teague v. Hall

171 Cal. 668 · California Supreme Court · Jan 13, 1916

The rule thus laid down is not qualified by any other instruction. … and conclusively established by the evidence.

Belair v. Riverside County Flood Control District

47 Cal. 3d 550 · California Supreme Court · Dec 22, 1988

The undisputed evidence clearly established that plaintiffs incurred actual physical injury to real property. … This clearly could be a substantial factor in causing the claimed damages. . . .

American Civil Liberties Union v. Board of Education

59 Cal. 2d 203 · California Supreme Court · Feb 26, 1963

Minnesota (1931) 283 U.S. 697, 715-716 [ 51 S.Ct. 625 , 75 L.Ed. 1357 ], Chief Justice Hughes, in discussing the classic legal statements concerning the immunity of the press from censorship, observed that the principle forbidding … Its purpose is simply to limit the granting of the benefits to those persons qualified under the respective statutes.

People v. Gonzales

66 Cal. 2d 482 · California Supreme Court · Apr 26, 1967

This evidence, however, although seemingly supportive of the robbery convictions, does not immunize them against the prejudicial taint of the Aranda error. … It is argued that the proffered evidence was clearly relevant to the issues herein because it was the defense theory that the death of Jesus Ontiveros resulted from blows struck in self-defense against the aggression of Ontiveros

People v. Kloss

115 Cal. 567 · California Supreme Court · Jan 14, 1897

This is absolutely all that is shown by the bill of exceptions in relation to intoxication at the time of the killing, and, in our opinion, is wholly insufficient to establish the fact. … You are to examine it with care and caution, however, lest *577 an ingenious counterfeit of this mental infirmity should furnish immunity from and perhaps defeat proper and just punishment.”

Pratt v. Rosenthal

181 Cal. 158 · California Supreme Court · Aug 28, 1919

At establish- *160 meats where slaughtering is conducted only veterinary inspectors shall be placed in charge. “ ‘ Section 3. Market Inspectors. … In other words, if the classification of the commission clearly violates the constitution or the statute, mandamus should issue to correct the classification.

Carpentier v. Webster

27 Cal. 524 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1865

by the tenants, and therefore each of them may claim those immunities as matter of right. … A disseizor cannot qualify his own wrongs. (Ricard v. Williams, 7 Wheat. 59 .)