Case law

Wallace v. Zinman

200 Cal. 585 · California Supreme Court · Mar 4, 1927

Nor shall any citizen or class of citizens, be granted privileges or immunities which, on the same terms, shall not be granted to all citizens.” … The majority of qualified electors are so much interested in managing their own affairs that they have no time carefully to consider measures affecting the general public.

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. . . .

Morris v. Williams

67 Cal. 2d 733 · California Supreme Court · Nov 20, 1967

Federal law enables states to include medically indigent persons in medical assistance programs that qualify for federal grants. … This specific requirement clearly qualifies the general authority conferred by the section. Moreover, it constitutes a duty with which implementing regulations may not be “inconsistent.”

Unterthiner v. Desert Hospital District

33 Cal. 3d 285 · California Supreme Court · Jan 24, 1983

Prod, supra, 31 Cal.3d 166, 177 , we pointed out: “Bixby and Interstate Brands establish that for purposes of determining applicability of independent judgment review the terms fundamental and vested are not used to establish … The application clearly stated that any significant misstatements or omissions constitute cause for denial of appointment, and even if we assume that he did not receive the rejections from the two Santa Barbara hospitals,

Eye Dog Foundation v. State Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind

67 Cal. 2d 536 · California Supreme Court · Oct 27, 1967

The act is clearly not open to constitutional attack upon the further ground here asserted. … “The occupation of solicit *550 ing contributions to charitable purposes is clearly so far subject to the police power, that it may be regulated by laws or ordinances providing for a reasonable supervision over the persons

Needham v. Superior Court

California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 2024

party has called the expert to testify, or that the expert has previously testified for one side or the other, standing alone, would not establish disqualifying bias (see People v. … For us to adopt a rule that hamstrings a balanced consideration runs counter to “the Legislature’s clearly expressed preference that SVPA commitment petitions be adjudicated on their merits.”

First Unitarian Church v. County of Los Angeles

48 Cal. 2d 419 · California Supreme Court · Apr 24, 1957

By that statement of the test the standard by which a weighing of interests is to be made is clearly indicated. … A statement made in the majority opinion clearly shows the fallacy in the entire affair.

Schildwachter v. City of Compton

14 Cal. 2d 342 · California Supreme Court · Sep 27, 1939

On June 11, 1935, the city council adopted ordinance No. 368, establishing a civil service system. … This language clearly contemplates the submission of a “proposition” and does not necessarily require such proposition to be an “ordinance”.

Kahn v. East Side Union High School District

4 Cal. Rptr. 3d 103 · California Supreme Court · Aug 28, 2003

The Legislature has, in a wide variety of contexts, considered a rule of qualified immunity, under which liability may be imposed only for gross negligence, sufficient to protect participants in, and sponsors of, socially … Such qualified immunity applies, for example, to liability of a public entity or employee for hazardous recreational activity on public property; [2] to physicians, nurses and others giving medical care at the scene of an

Cedars of Lebanon Hospital v. County of Los Angeles

35 Cal. 2d 729 · California Supreme Court · Aug 18, 1950

Such conclusion seems to be clearly in accord with the weight of authority. (Anno: 34 A.L.R. 674 , 62 A.L.R. 336 , 108 A.L.R. 295 , Nuns of Third Order of St. Dominic v. … As defendants state, such qualifying limitation is well illustrated in Cypress Lawn Cemetery Association v.

Abbott Ford, Inc. v. Superior Court

43 Cal. 3d 858 · California Supreme Court · Sep 3, 1987

Section 877 establishes that a good faith settlement bars other defendants from seeking contribution from the settling defendant (§ 877, subd. … In addition, they argue that even if some sliding scale agreements *876 may properly be found to be good faith settlements, the agreements at issue here clearly cannot.

People v. Jenkins

95 Cal. Rptr. 2d 377 · California Supreme Court · Jun 28, 2000

his own immunity arrangement. … The facts already known clearly would have established probable cause.

Hesler v. California Hospital Co.

178 Cal. 764 · California Supreme Court · Aug 23, 1918

To sustain an action it is not necessary to establish gross culpability; mere evidence of want of proper or ordinary care or attention and advice in the discharge of duty by a physician is sufficient to take the ease to the … The court below in other instructions stated the rule by which the defendants were bound, accurately and clearly. There is a clear conflict in the instructions.

Adams v. Superior Court

12 Cal. 3d 55 · California Supreme Court · Jul 19, 1974

Jones (1973) 9 Cal.3d 546, 549-550 [ 108 Cal.Rptr. 345 , 510 P.2d 705 ].) *60 Within this guideline, there is broad discretion in establishing juror qualification. … His interest in becoming a juror is clearly secondary to the interests of the litigants in securing an impartial jury, as shown by the traditional exclusion of prospective jurors for cause or upon peremptory challenge.

Butchers' Union Local 229 v. Cudahy Packing Co.

66 Cal. 2d 925 · California Supreme Court · Jun 23, 1967

Since “severance pay” benefits are established by section 21 of the collective bargaining agreement, any issue as to whether an employee qualifies for such pay must clearly come under the arbitration section. … Such an issue, so clearly interrelated with the basic contract, cannot be siphoned off to the pension board for final determination.

Lean v. Givens

146 Cal. 739 · California Supreme Court · May 17, 1905

The filing of the notice in the office of the recorder is clearly for no other purpose than to give notice to third persons of the prior charge. … Russell, 86 Cal. 120 , 2 that "a levy creates no lien,” is qualified by the subsequent language of the opinion, and, when taken in connection with the facts involved, must be understood to mean that it does not create a lien

In Re Arnold

204 Cal. 175 · California Supreme Court · May 14, 1928

Not only will the express desires of the qualified number of electors who signed the referendum petition be defeated, but the whole principle of legislation by initiation from the people will be given a serious blow. … Clearly, that is the place, and the only place, for the lodging of protest as to the sufficiency of the signatures.

Independent Progressive Party v. County Clerks

31 Cal. 2d 549 · California Supreme Court · Mar 23, 1948

It appears from the affidavit filed pursuant to section 2900 that on March 16, 1948, the above named party qualified to participate in the primary election of June 1, 1948, pursuant to section 2540(e) of the Elections Code … The italicized portion of the last-quoted section clearly provides that if petitions with the requisite number of signatures are filed 75 days before any primary, the party shall be entitled to participate in that primary

City of S.F. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal.

248 Cal. Rptr. 3d 352 · California Supreme Court · Jun 20, 2019

The Constitution itself establishes the University of California, vesting the Regents with "full powers of organization and government" ( Cal. Const., art. IX, § 9, subd. … Principles of governmental tax immunity do not bar the parking tax.

People v. Morine

61 Cal. 367 · California Supreme Court · Aug 30, 1882

Applying the above rule, well established by the decisions in this State, to the charge given by the Court in this case, we find that as a whole it correctly presents the law of justifiable homicide, although it may be admitted … Conceding, therefore, for the purpose of the argument, that the witness should have been permitted to answer the questions objected to, we are clearly of the opinion that the defendant’s case was not prejudiced by the action