Case law

Lewis v. Ogram

149 Cal. 505 · California Supreme Court · Jul 30, 1906

The facts found clearly show that the agreement in question, although in terms purporting only to fix the division line, could have had no other object or purpose than to operate upon the title or right of possession of the … But he did not see fit to do this, and when the time within which he could have done so expired, Ogram, or any other qualified person, was at liberty to enter it.

Mosk v. Superior Court

25 Cal. 3d 474 · California Supreme Court · Oct 18, 1979

But a mere change in phraseology, incident to a revision of the Constitution or statute, does not result in a change of meaning unless the intent to make such a change clearly appears. (Hammond v. … No such purpose warrants deviation from the constitutional requirement of confidentiality established by the people of this state.

Kwasnik v. State Bar

50 Cal. 3d 1061 · California Supreme Court · May 31, 1990

To qualify, an applicant must, among other things, be of “good moral character.” (Id., § 6060, subd. (b).) … Petitioner contends he has established his rehabilitation and good moral character. We agree.

Blank v. Borden

11 Cal. 3d 963 · California Supreme Court · Jul 8, 1974

We held that these charges, which did not qualify as proper liquidated damages pursuant to Civil Code section 1671 , constituted illegal penalties. … Clearly considerations of this nature are not present in the instant case.

Willson v. Municipal Bond Co.

7 Cal. 2d 144 · California Supreme Court · Jul 30, 1936

The evidence above quoted clearly sustains both theories. The fact that Pox was directed by Cotton and other officers of the bond company in all substantial details of the deal is clearly established. … The fact that Cotton and other officials of the bond company actively participated in all of said transactions is clearly established by their acquiescence in permitting Pox to represent himself as the owner of the bonds

People v. Tahl

65 Cal. 2d 719 · California Supreme Court · Feb 8, 1967

It did not necessarily indicate that he thereby meant to qualify the statement that he was without hope of recovery.” … Defendant’s statements to the police, in conjunction with the circumstantial evidence, clearly established Ms connection with the weapon. Ninth. Were the extrajudicial statements made Try defendant to the St.

People v. Scoggins

37 Cal. 676 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1869

If the threats of the deceased had been communicated to the defendant before the killing, the evidence would have been clearly competent. … still in some degree, toward the conclusion proposed to be established.

In Re Marriage of Fithian

10 Cal. 3d 592 · California Supreme Court · Jan 3, 1974

questions of property law involving a conflict between a state decision and a valid federal statute, the United States Supreme Court has determined that the supremacy clause requires the state law to yield no matter how clearly … Nevertheless we are asked to measure the property involved herein against a five-part Wissner “test” which purportedly determines whether Congress intended a federally created property right to be immune from community property

People v. Cornwell

33 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1 · California Supreme Court · Aug 18, 2005

The high court vacated the judgment and remanded the case to the trial court to determine whether an actual conflict existed, without clearly referring to any adverse effect on counsel’s performance. … On redirect examination, Johnson explained that the grant of immunity followed his admission to law enforcement authorities that he had provided defendant with a weapon.

Jackson v. Superior Court of Riverside Cnty.

226 Cal. Rptr. 3d 110 · California Supreme Court · Dec 11, 2017

The District Attorney properly concedes that the dismissal of the original felony complaint in case INF061693 in favor of the indictment in case INF1500950 was a qualifying dismissal subject to the two-dismissal rule. … There, the trial court dismissed the original charges for failure to prosecute within the time limits established by section 1381.

Melvin v. State

121 Cal. 16 · California Supreme Court · May 31, 1898

They are required to qualify as required by the constitution; to meet at the office of the State Agricultural Society, elect one of their number as president of the board for a term of ene year; to elect a secretary and treasurer … In all these provisions we think it plain that the construction to be put on the statute is, not that the spouses were simply to enjoy immunity from such contracts for sums of money due by certain and express agreement, which

Sweetwater Union High Sch. Dist. v. Gilbane Bldg. Co.

243 Cal. Rptr. 3d 880 · California Supreme Court · Feb 28, 2019

To qualify as an alternative to an affidavit, a declaration must be signed and recite that the person making it certifies it to be true under penalty of perjury. … Yet, the statutory scheme clearly contemplates that courts may consider them. 8 *889 Defendants further suggest that use of statements from a different case should not be allowed because "[n]o showing need be made that the

People v. Kynette

15 Cal. 2d 731 · California Supreme Court · Jul 30, 1940

The testimony of telephone company officials established that no telephone had been ordered for or established in the “spy house”. … The rule relied upon is of course well estab *746 lished, but the evidence was clearly admissible under the equally well-established exception thereto.

CBS, INC. v. Block

42 Cal. 3d 646 · California Supreme Court · Oct 9, 1986

Penal Code section 12050 authorizes the sheriff of each county and the chief of any municipal police department to license, from year to year, certain qualified individuals to carry concealed firearms. … The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department has augmented the statutory provision by establishing an internal procedure and policy for processing applications for licenses.

People ex rel. Lynch v. Harrison

107 Cal. 541 · California Supreme Court · Jun 28, 1895

Upon this judgment-roll it therefore appears that the judgment of foreclosure rendered against Mullan was void, and this brings the *546 case directly in line with the principle of law so clearly and forcibly declared in … He was personally qualified to make the application and had the right to make it.

Doney v. Tambouratgis

23 Cal. 3d 91 · California Supreme Court · Jan 4, 1979

Conversely the employer is immunized under sections 3600 and 3601 from an action at law brought by the employee for such injury.” (Unruh v. … Nonetheless, plaintiff’s own proof established that the injury was work-related, thereby triggering defendant’s motion for nonsuit. Under such circumstances, defendant’s motion was both timely and proper.

County of San Bernardino v. City of San Bernardino

15 Cal. 4th 909 · California Supreme Court · Jun 30, 1997

Such authorization was necessary to immunize the agencies from liability under the United States Supreme Court’s then recent decision *918 holding that local governments granting monopolies would not be exempt from antitrust … laws unless they acted pursuant to “ ‘clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed’ ” state policy.

Vista Verde Farms v. Agricultural Labor Relations Board

29 Cal. 3d 307 · California Supreme Court · Mar 20, 1981

Turning from the NLRA to the ALRA, the drafters of the California act clearly intended to establish a standard of employer responsibility which is at least as liberal as that applied under the federal act. … To begin with, for several reasons we find that the language in question clearly cannot properly be read as immunizing such misconduct of a labor contractor from any review or regulation under the act.

Avan v. Municipal Court

62 Cal. 2d 630 · California Supreme Court · Apr 28, 1965

If the county public defender had been requested to represent defendant in the proceedings in question, he would have been required to decline the representation, and by such action would clearly have “refused” to represent … Thus, the section discourages an overlapping of the functions of appointed counsel and the public defender by denying compensation to the former when the latter is authorized and qualified to act.'.

Binford v. Boyd

178 Cal. 458 · California Supreme Court · Jun 29, 1918

The act establishes a state board of architecture, and empowers said board to examine persons who desire to follow the profession of an architect, and to issue to them licenses for that purpose. … The terms of the act show clearly that it was directed only to individuals as distinguished from corporations.