Case law

City of Grass Valley v. Walkinshaw

34 Cal. 2d 595 · California Supreme Court · Dec 28, 1949

Section 2(j) prohibits the contracting of indebtedness in excess of $5,000 except with the consent of two-thirds of the qualified electors voting thereon and requires bonds to be issued therefor. … So guided, reason dictates that the full exercise of the power is permitted except as clearly and explicitly curtailed.

In Re Marriage of Assemi

7 Cal. 4th 896 · California Supreme Court · May 26, 1994

. _ [ 124 L.Ed.2d 391, 398, fn. 8 , 113 S.Ct. 2167, 2170 ]; see also § 1280.1 [an arbitrator has the immunity, from civil liability, of a judicial officer].) … In the present case, the trial court’s determination that the parties entered into a binding settlement agreement clearly is supported by substantial evidence.

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

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.

Legislature v. Eu

54 Cal. 3d 492 · California Supreme Court · Oct 10, 1991

Rather, our sole function is to evaluate [the measure] legally in the light of established constitutional standards.”]; see also CalFarm Ins. Co. v. … Respondents, of course, dispute petitioners’ premise that long-term legislators are inevitably better qualified than other candidates, and they believe that term limitations will encourage, rather than inhibit, new qualified

Brooks v. City of Gilroy

219 Cal. 766 · California Supreme Court · Jan 30, 1934

This may have been the reason why the court failed to find whether said city had a legally appointed and qualified city engineer at the time it entered into its contract with Sloan. … We think that Sloan’s appointment was clearly for that limited purpose and not to discharge generally the duties of city engineer.

California Physicians' Service v. Garrison

28 Cal. 2d 790 · California Supreme Court · Aug 27, 1946

These definitions clearly state the basic concepts or elements which are a necessary prerequisite of a contract of insurance. … Payments from the fund are made to the physicians pro rata in accordance with an established schedule.

Merrill v. Department of Motor Vehicles

71 Cal. 2d 907 · California Supreme Court · Sep 3, 1969

Clearly, this is a question of law. … It is likewise true that the administrative interpretation of a statute will be accorded great respect by the courts and will be followed if not clearly erroneous. [Citations.]

Britton v. Board of Election Commissioners

129 Cal. 337 · California Supreme Court · Jul 28, 1900

No citizen or class of citizens shall be granted privileges or immunities which upon the same terms shall not be granted to all citizens (Const., art. … Such being the fact, to my mind the law is clearly unconstitutional.”

Big Creek Lumber Co. v. County of Santa Cruz

45 Cal. Rptr. 3d 21 · California Supreme Court · Jun 29, 2006

such intention is made clearly to appear *1150 either by express declaration or by necessary implication.” … Implied preemption occurs when: (1) general law so completely covers the subject as to clearly indicate the matter is exclusively one of state concern; (2) general law partially covers the *1158 subject in terms clearly indicating

Tebbe v. Smith

108 Cal. 101 · California Supreme Court · Jul 12, 1895

If this is established it would be manifestly unjust to reject them merely because the precise mode of reaching it had not been followed. … Yates, 31 Cal. 82 , the contention of appellants was that, admitting that there was no fraud, and that the votes were cast by qualified electors, still the fact that in certain precincts the polls were opened, without reason

People v. Marsden

2 Cal. 3d 118 · California Supreme Court · Feb 26, 1970

I think possibly you are a bright person and who thinks a case should be conducted in a certain way, which you are not qualified to determine. “The Defendant Marsden: Your Honor. … “A defendant’s right to a court-appointed counsel does not include the right to require the court to appoint more than one counsel, except in a situation where the record clearly shows that the first appointed counsel is

In Re EJ

47 Cal. 4th 1258 · California Supreme Court · Feb 1, 2010

Clearly, the registration requirement is imposed upon conviction of the registrable offense as are all ancillary restrictions that flow from that requirement including the residency restriction. … (a))—in which some events occurred before the date of the statute's effective date but others clearly occurred afterwards. ( Grant, supra, 20 Cal.4th at p. 153 .)

In Re Jenkins

50 Cal. 4th 1167 · California Supreme Court · Oct 28, 2010

Code Regs., tit. 15, § 3375 et seq.) 2 These regulations provide that “[t]he classification of felon inmates shall include the classification score system as established. … The italicized word “it” clearly refers to the classification action, not a later court action either upholding or setting aside the classification action. (See also Superintendent v.

County of Los Angeles v. La Fuente

20 Cal. 2d 870 · California Supreme Court · Sep 29, 1942

But the “need” of the applicant necessary to qualify for the benefits of the law is defined by the Legislature to be the absence of actual receipt of support by the applicant from responsible relatives and by the property … The intention of the Legislature in this regard is also shown by the 1941 amendment to section 2181 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, establishing a relative’s maximum contribution scale based entirely upon the monetary

State v. Superior Court

13 Cal. Rptr. 3d 534 · California Supreme Court · May 24, 2004

As part of the California Tort Claims Act, Government Code section 900 et seq. 1 establishes certain conditions precedent to the filing of a lawsuit against a public entity. … We therefore reject defendants’ contention that failure to allege compliance establishes a jurisdictional defect. 8 (See, e.g., Hart v.

Pitts v. Perluss

58 Cal. 2d 824 · California Supreme Court · Dec 12, 1962

It authorizes coverage under the State Disability Fund or under voluntary plans, which can be self-insured or insured by a qualified insurance company. … The companies state that the statistics used to establish the standards for approval cannot properly be compared with the census information which the insurer supplies the director to determine if the plan has qualified for

Max Factor & Co. v. Kunsman

5 Cal. 2d 446 · California Supreme Court · Feb 28, 1936

The object sought to be attained is clearly within the sphere of state regulation, and the means provided in the statute have a reasonable relation to this object. … The allegations of the complaint clearly establish that as to the transaction now before the court it is one arising and involving goods wholly located within this state.

Jolicoeur v. Mihaly

5 Cal. 3d 565 · California Supreme Court · Aug 27, 1971

Respondents’ policy would clearly frustrate youthful willingness to accomplish change at the local level through the political system. … Voting registrars are public officers with the ministerial duty of permitting qualified voters to register. Mandamus is clearly the proper remedy for compelling an officer to conduct an election according to law.

People v. Hoyt

257 Cal. Rptr. 3d 784 · California Supreme Court · Jan 30, 2020

There, the defendant repeatedly and clearly invoked his rights to silence and counsel without waiving his rights under Miranda, only to be ignored by the questioning officer, who hoped to obtain evidence for impeachment purposes … ‘On the other hand, when the out-of-court statements are not given under suspect circumstances, those statements do not qualify as “testimony” and hence need not be corroborated under . . . section 1111.’ ” (People v.