Case law

People v. Green

47 Cal. 2d 209 · California Supreme Court · Oct 19, 1956

I don’t feel that I could qualify. . . . … That issue and the proof of prior convictions are clearly severable.”

Thomson v. Call

38 Cal. 3d 633 · California Supreme Court · May 23, 1985

Anderson, supra, 50 Cal.App.2d 306 . 20 ) The trial court’s remedy is thus consistent with a long, clearly established line of cases. Admittedly, the resulting forfeiture seems harsh under the facts of this case. … This argument assumes—not unreasonably, perhaps—that some of the most qualified potential civic leaders are usually those engaged in business or in the professions, and that currently many such persons otherwise qualified

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.

California Housing Finance Agency v. Elliott

17 Cal. 3d 575 · California Supreme Court · Jul 21, 1976

In addition, bond proceeds under the Act may be used either to purchase loans from qualified mortgage lenders (§§ 41455-41457) or to lend funds to qualified mortgage lenders on the condition that they make such loans (§§ … A portion of these proceeds is to be set aside either to purchase loans from qualified mortgage lenders or to lend to qualified mortgage lenders for the making of loans, including those made for the purpdse of refinancing

Pierce v. Robinson

13 Cal. 116 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1859

The authorities cited, establish clearly the equitable right of the plaintiff to the proceeds in the hands of the Administrator for the payment of his demand. … I place the question whether the conveyance is tobe deemed a mortgage, entirely upon the admissibility of parol evidence to establish the fact. The evidence in the record, if admitted, clearly establishes it.

Schwalbe v. Jones

16 Cal. 3d 514 · California Supreme Court · Mar 12, 1976

The classification established by former section 17158 following invalidation of the guest provision of that statute in Brown v. … It was the responsibility of plaintiffs to offer proper qualifying instructions, and in light of their failure to do so, the court properly refused to read the Vehicle Code sections as requested by them. (See Downing v.

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.

Foss v. Hinkell

78 Cal. 158 · California Supreme Court · Jan 28, 1889

The defendant is a duly qualified pre-emptor, having entered into and held possession of the land in suit since the 22d of April, 1886, and ever since that day has been a bona fide pre-emption settler thereon. … That the Mexican grant for the rancho above named was sub judice long after the definite location of the railroad was made, is clearly found.

People v. Coleman

4 Cal. 46 · California Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1854

All property shall be taxed in proportion [50] to its value, to be * ascertained as directed bylaw; but Assessors and Collectors of town, county and State taxes shall be elected by the qualified electors of the district, … Again it is contended, that the Act of May, 1858, is in violation of that clause of the Federal Constitution which guarantees to citizens of one State the same privileges and immunities which they are entitled to in their

Sixth District Agricultural Ass'n v. Wright

154 Cal. 119 · California Supreme Court · Aug 8, 1908

Such appointments were thereupon made by the governor, and the appointees duly qualified and organized, and assumed control of the affairs of such purported association. … The evidence very clearly shows that beginning with the year 1881, it issued alleged certificates of shares of stock to various persons who subscribed money for the purpose of re-establishing an agricultural association,

Oneto v. Restano

78 Cal. 374 · California Supreme Court · Mar 12, 1889

Defendant may have had a qualified or limited property in the water. If the use was under a lease from the plaintiff’s predecessor, it might be said in one sense that defendant used the water “as his own property.” … But he contends that it is evidence tending to show that the use by defendant was adverse to Bache, and to establish a prescriptive right in the defendant. And in this we agree.

Garrett v. Coast & Southern Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n

9 Cal. 3d 731 · California Supreme Court · Jul 18, 1973

Accordingly, a borrower on an installment note cannot legally agree to forfeit what is clearly a penalty in exchange for the right to exercise an option to default in making a timely payment of an installment. … proper showing defendant might have been able to establish the impracticability of prospectively fixing its actual damages resulting from a default in an installment payment.

Lewis v. Lewis

174 Cal. 336 · California Supreme Court · Jan 31, 1917

Section 206 does declare or establish a duty or obligation. This duty runs in favor of adult children (Paxton v. … the qualifying adjective “minor.”

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.

Westerfeld v. New York Life Insurance

129 Cal. 68 · California Supreme Court · Jun 25, 1900

Upon mature consideration we think the decision rendered in Department is right, and the opinion is adopted as the opinion of the court in Bank, except as it may be deemed to have been qualified by this opinion. … The allegation under criticism is a very imperfect averment of a statutory rescission, yet it clearly implies that such rescission has been made.

StorMedia Inc. v. Superior Court

84 Cal. Rptr. 2d 843 · California Supreme Court · May 27, 1999

stock to the general public during the period in which the price of its stock was affected by its market manipulation activities; and (3) to the extent that sections 25400 and 25500 impose liability based on conduct that is immunized … Contrary to StorMedia’s view, subdivision (d) of section 25400 does not state that false and misleading statements must be made for the purpose of inducing the sale or purchase of stock that qualifies the defendant as a seller

Minikin v. Hendrix

15 Cal. 2d 338 · California Supreme Court · Apr 12, 1940

From the foregoing the trial court clearly may have assumed that plaintiff was not without some knowledge of the cost of the various improvements to which he testified. … Also, as one of the owners of the said improvements plaintiff was qualified to testify concerning their value. (Los Angeles Co. F. C. Dist. v. Abbot, 24 Cal. App. (2d) 728, 737 [ 76 Pac. (2d) 188 ]; People v.

People ex rel. Fowler v. Wells

11 Cal. 329 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1858

How, although the 4th section of the Act concerning County Treasurers, passed in 1850, has never been expressly repealed, yet we think it beyond question that it is clearly repealed by implication. … It will not probably be denied that the incumbent might hold as a loeum tenens beyond the exact limit of his term; in other words, till his successor was qualified.

People v. Shears

133 Cal. 154 · California Supreme Court · May 31, 1901

This being the substance of the testimony for the prosecution, it established a very clear case of manslaughter, against which the only matter urged in defense was certain evidence to the effect that the defendant was or … But they do not have this effect, for they only qualify the hypothesis stated in the instruction itself, which is one of actual and imminent danger, as distinguished from apparent danger.

People v. Bunn

115 Cal. Rptr. 2d 192 · California Supreme Court · Jan 10, 2002

As noted, however, this does not mean that the activities of one branch are entirely immune from regulation or oversight by another. … Notwithstanding the foregoing analysis, the circumstances under which a judgment achieves finality and is therefore immune from legislative interference are clearly limited under Plaut .