Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

Filterscal

4,869 results

0.38s

  • People v. Smallwood

    42 Cal. 3d 415 · California Supreme Court · Aug 21, 1986

    He stated the scope of the immunity as follows: “I would say exactly if during this trial he admits at any time he lied previously during the testimony he has immunity as to the perjury charge also, of course.” … Spencer had already been given immunity regarding illegal drugs or other criminal activity his testimony might reveal.

    Cited 38 timesPublished
  • Wallis v. Board of Civil Service Commissioners

    11 Cal. 2d 430 · California Supreme Court · Jun 28, 1938

    employed certain persons who had formerly been employed in the operating service of the utility for at least one year immediately prior to the acquisition of the utility’s property by the city and Avere other *434 wise qualified … The question does *435 not involve the right of the petitioners as former employees of the utility to permanency in tenure of their employment, for clearly they have no such right except to the extent that the employer, the

    Cited 2 timesPublished
  • Guardianship of Brown

    16 Cal. 3d 326 · California Supreme Court · Mar 2, 1976

    Thereafter at some date not clearly disclosed by the record, the court made what appear to be proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law as follows: “It is true that: 1. … That petitioner, Willett Thomas, is the mother of the said incompetent person, and is fully qualified to manage the affairs and estate of said incompetent Thomas Nelson Brown.”

    Cited 24 timesPublished
  • Smith v. Kern County Medical Assn.

    19 Cal. 2d 263 · California Supreme Court · Jan 12, 1942

    A violation of such of the established rules of the association as have been subscribed or assented to by the members, and as provide expulsion for such violation; 2. … For such conduct as clearly violates the fundamental objects of the association, and if persisted in and allowed would thwart those objects or bring the association into disrepute.”

    Cited 28 timesPublished
  • Stockton Civic Theatre v. Board of Supervisors

    66 Cal. 2d 13 · California Supreme Court · Feb 24, 1967

    Thus the many nonprofit corporations and organizations which exist primarily for the benefit of their shareholders would not qualify for the exemption. … Moreover, the various subdivisions of section 214 of the Bevenue and Taxation Code (see fn. 1) also will preclude a substantial number of nonprofit corporations and organizations from qualifying.

    Cited 21 timesPublished
  • Ex parte Henshaw

    73 Cal. 486 · California Supreme Court · Sep 28, 1887

    The repeal is shown by its being clearly a revision of the former acts on the subject of Police Courts in the class of cities referred to. (See Christy v. … It would seem that, under section 1 of article 6, such a court as that established by the act of 1885 may be created by a special law for each city.

    Cited 20 timesPublished
  • Asdourian v. Araj

    38 Cal. 3d 276 · California Supreme Court · Mar 11, 1985

    The contract contained a description of the work to be done and established a total price of $21,500. … If the facts clearly indicate substantial compliance which satisfies the policy of the Contractors License Law, the failure to establish all of the Latipac factors should not defeat plaintiff's claim. (1b) In this case, plaintiff

    Superseded by statute, as recognized in Construction Financial v. Perlite Plastering Co.Cited 90 timesPublished
  • People v. Wong Fook Sam

    146 Cal. 114 · California Supreme Court · Jan 30, 1905

    Such a stale of the case is clearly conceivable, and if it existed, the instruction was not erroneous. The instruction in question was part of a general instruction upon the evidence essential to show perjury. … This absolute statement is not qualified or limited by the subsequent paragraph in which the court further stated several particulars wherein the allegations of the information were admitted.

    Cited 7 timesPublished
  • Southern California Rapid Transit District v. Bolen

    1 Cal. 4th 654 · California Supreme Court · Jan 30, 1992

    Under state law, only “property taxpayers” were qualified to vote in such a referendum. … the benefit district on the terms approved by the governing body or forgo its establishment.

    Cited 19 timesPublished
  • Peterson v. City of Long Beach

    24 Cal. 3d 238 · California Supreme Court · May 16, 1979

    The trial court’s determination that the police manual was not intended to establish a minimum standard of conduct was so clearly correct that this plaintiff abandoned the point on appeal. … Indeed, under present law, an officer is immune from civil liability if he acts in good faith under the apparent authority of an enactment such as Penal Code section 196. (Gov. Code, § 820.6.)

    Cited 27 timesPublished
  • Sun'n Sand, Inc. v. United California Bank

    21 Cal. 3d 671 · California Supreme Court · Jul 20, 1978

    To receive the benefit of these warranties, then, the drawer of a check must qualify as an “other payor who . . . pays.” … One so qualifying does not warrant the lack of material alteration to, among others, the drawer of a check.

    Abrogated by statute, as recognized in Lee Newman, M.D., Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.Cited 183 timesPublished
  • People v. Wheeler

    22 Cal. 3d 258 · California Supreme Court · Sep 25, 1978

    Would they be immunized from any inquiry until they had made a “record” of such discrimination? If so, how many “free” unrepresentative juries would each be entitled to? … qualified as jurors in the particular case, have not been arbitrarily excluded merely because of their nationality, race or color.’ ” (People v.

    Overruled in part by Johnson v. California, 545 U.S. 162 (2005)Cited 1,314 timesPublished
  • Ribas v. Clark

    38 Cal. 3d 355 · California Supreme Court · Mar 18, 1985

    Thus, defendant has not established how, or even whether, her conduct was in compliance with any relevant tariffs. … In sum, to permit a third person to furtively listen to a conversation on an extension telephone would clearly contravene the objectives of section 631, subdivision (a).

    Cited 182 timesPublished
  • People v. Morales

    266 Cal. Rptr. 3d 706 · California Supreme Court · Aug 10, 2020

    qualify him as an expert on the subject to which his testimony relates. … But given his relevant on-the-job training and experience, we cannot say Delhauer “ ‘ “ ‘clearly lack[ed]’ ” ’ ” the necessary qualifications, such that the trial court abused its discretion in finding him qualified to testify

    Cited 164 timesPublished
  • Sentry Select Insurance v. Fidelity & Guaranty Insurance

    46 Cal. 4th 204 · California Supreme Court · May 4, 2009

    The rule is part of a statutory scheme intended to establish workable, bright-line rules for allocating loss among coinsurers in the context of liability policies covering multiple-vehicle accidents. … Section 11580.9, subdivision (b) now clearly provides that the renting or leasing of commercial vehicles without operators in the course of any business can qualify for the conclusive presumption that the insured’s coverage

    Cited 6 timesPublished
  • People v. Williams

    133 Cal. 165 · California Supreme Court · May 31, 1901

    So considered, it was clearly a confession, or that is not a confession which simply admits all the facts charged, but stops short of a confession of guilt in the precise words, “ I am guilty.” … This rule is uncertain, and unfair to the defendant, because of the qualifying clause, “ for the purpose of securing a conviction upon it.”

    Cited 117 timesPublished
  • People v. Park

    56 Cal. 4th 782 · California Supreme Court · May 13, 2013

    The court‟s authority to exercise discretion in this regard is a long-established component of California‟s criminal law. … General involve prior crimes that were not wobblers, or the interpretation of statutes, such as the Three Strikes sentencing scheme, that contain language expressly defining the term “prior felony conviction” in a manner clearly

    Cited 309 timesPublished
  • People v. Johnson

    47 Cal. 3d 1194 · California Supreme Court · Feb 23, 1989

    We do not read Wheeler or Hall as establishing such a requirement. … On the subject of the same witness’s expertise, the prosecutor argued, “I won’t call him an expert, but I don’t think he was really qualified as one. ...”

    Overruled on other grounds by People v. Gutierrez, 218 Cal. Rptr. 3d 289 (2017)Cited 246 timesPublished
  • People v. Kolez

    23 Cal. 2d 670 · California Supreme Court · Feb 1, 1944

    The Legislature did not distinguish between one kind of first degree murder and another, nor did it establish death as the ordinary punishment for first degree murder and life imprisonment as the exceptional one. … view of the whole evidence, the jury is of opinion that it would not be just or wise to impose capital punishment . . . ‘ ‘ ‘ The instructions of the judge to the jury, in each of the three cases now before this court, clearly

    Overruled in part by People v. Green, 47 Cal. 2d 209 (1956)Cited 7 timesPublished
  • Forestier v. Johnson

    164 Cal. 24 · California Supreme Court · Oct 1, 1912

    It established a state land office to manage the sale of all lands held by the state and the reclamation thereof where necessary. … They become a part of it and qualify it so that the estate granted is limited to the permitted uses.

    Cited 29 timesPublished

Ask Donna

Ask Donna

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.