Case law

Burns v. Brown

27 Cal. 2d 631 · California Supreme Court · Feb 8, 1946

(Lane v. Pacific Greyhound Lines, 55 Cal.App.2d 525 [ 131 P.2d 53 ].) … (Estate of Dolbeer, 147 Cal. 359, 361 [ 81 P. 1098 ]; Vance v. Superior Court, 87 Cal. 390 [ 25 P. 500 ]; Hyde v. Boyle, 86 Cal. 352 [ 24 P. 1059 ]; Landers v.

Carey v. Brown

62 Cal. 373 · California Supreme Court · Dec 14, 1882

Brown having made default in the payment of the principal and interest of said note, and the holder of the same having made application to the parties of the first part, requiring them (the trustees) to sell the whole of

People v. Brown

11 Cal. 3d 784 · California Supreme Court · Jun 21, 1974

A jury found Bedford Alvis Brown guilty of one count of kidnaping (Pen. Code, § 207), 1 one count of battery (§ 242), one count of petty theft (§§ 484, 488) and two counts of trespassing (§ 602, subd. (/)). … (People v. Stanworth, supra, ante, 588, 601.) Where the movements of the victim are slight or insubstantial as they were in People v.

Brown v. Rea

150 Cal. 171 · California Supreme Court · Jan 7, 1907

(Aram v. Schallenberger, 41 Cal. 449 ; Bigley v. Nunan, 53 Cal. 403 ; Hogan v. Central Pacific R. R. Co., 71 Cal. 87 , [ 11 Pac. 876 ].) … Some of the cases illustrating this rule are Payne v. McKinley, 54 Cal. 532 ; Dunn v. City of Austin, 11 S. W. (Tex.) 1125; Bowen v. Mauzy, 117 Ind. 258 , [ 19 N. E. 526 ]; Begein v. Anderson, 28 Ind. 79 ; Kingsbury v.

Ford v. Brown

120 Cal. 551 · California Supreme Court · Apr 8, 1898

TJmhsen &' Co. were *552 employed by defendant, Margaret Brown, to sell certain real estate belonging to her. … Brown, defendant, gave the following writing to the brokers: “San Francisco, March, 10, 1891. I hereby ratify sale of my lot this day made by G-. H. Umbsen & Co., for the sum of $14,800 net to me.”

Taylor v. Brown

4 Cal. 188 · California Supreme Court · Apr 15, 1854

Brown v. Ruffenach

5 Cal. 2d 588 · California Supreme Court · Mar 2, 1936

(People v. McFadden, 81 Cal. 489, 498 [22 Pac. 851 , 15 Am. St. Rep. 66 ] ; Dillwood v. Riecks, 42 Cal. App. 602, 608 [ 184 Pac. 35 ]; Watson v. Greely, 67 Cal. App. 328, 337 [ 227 Pac. 664 ].) … (Miles v. Ryan, 172 Cal. 205, 207 [ 157 Pac. 5 ] ; Liebman v. Richmond, 103 Cal. App. 354, 359 [ 284 Pac. 731 ] ; Mayrhofer v. Board of Education, 89 Cal. 110, 112 [ 26 Pac. 646 , 23 Am. St. Rep. 451 ].)

Brown v. Aguilar

202 Cal. 143 · California Supreme Court · Sep 14, 1927

The case of Moore v. … (Smith v. Brady, 17 N. Y. 177 [ 72 Am. Dec. 442 ]; Wyckoff v. Meyers, 44 N. Y. 145 ; Stewart v. Keteltas, 36 N. Y. 388 ; Hudson v. McCartney, 33 Wis. 340 .) ” In the case of Dingley v.

Brown v. O'Neal

95 Cal. 262 · California Supreme Court · Jul 12, 1892

(And see Brown v. Graham, 24 Ill. 630 , and Newell v. Desmond, 63 Cal. 242 .) … (Watson v. Rodgers, 53 Cal. 401 .)

Brown v. Rouse

115 Cal. 619 · California Supreme Court · Jan 21, 1897

In the next place, the respondent contends that, according to the decision in Hill v. … But the case of Hill v. Finnigan, supra, did not involve any such question, and it was not decided upon any principle or proposition which justifies the claim made by counsel.

Luco v. Brown

73 Cal. 3 · California Supreme Court · Jun 29, 1887

The same question was again presented in Gates v. Lane, 49 Cal. 266 . … In Ede v.

Disputesuite, LLC v. Scoreinc.com

216 Cal. Rptr. 3d 109 · California Supreme Court · Apr 6, 2017

Frog Creek Partners, LLC v. … (Presley of Southern California v. Whelan, supra, at p. 963; see Mustachio v.

McGuire v. Brown

106 Cal. 660 · California Supreme Court · Apr 2, 1895

(Sturr v. Beck, 133 U. S. 547 -49, citing Chotard v. Pope, 12 Wheat. 588 ; Hastings etc. R. R. Co. v. Whitney, 132 U. S. 357 .) … Brown’s claims as a homestead settler were subordinate to those interests and his land was subject to a servitude for the support of the same. (De Necochea v. Curtis, 80 Cal. 397 ; Wells v. Mantes, 99 Cal. 583 .)

Haber v. Brown

101 Cal. 445 · California Supreme Court · Feb 28, 1894

(Ford v. Mitchell, 15 Wis. 304 ; Billingham, v. Bryan, 10 Iowa, 317 ; Seamon v. Van Slyck, 8 Wend. 404 ; Cromwell v. Hewitt, 40 N. Y. 491 ; 100 Am. Dec. 527 .) … (Wheeler v. Field, 6 Met. 290 ; Anderson v. Drake, 14 Johns. 114 ; 7 Am. Dec. 442 ; Hartford Dank v. Green, 11 Iowa, 476 .)

Ramirez v. Brown

9 Cal. 3d 199 · California Supreme Court · Mar 30, 1973

(Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections (1966) 383 U.S. 663, 669 , 86 S.Ct. 1079, 1083 , 16 L.Ed.2d 169 .) … (Green v. Board of Elections of City of New York (2d Cir. 1967) 380 F.2d 445 ; Kronlund v. Honstein (N.D.Ga. 1971) 327 F.Supp. 71 ; Beacham v.

People v. Brown

45 Cal. 3d 1247 · California Supreme Court · Jul 11, 1988

(California v. Brown, supra, 479 U.S. 538 [ 93 L.Ed.2d 934 ].) … We have so assumed in several opinions since California v. Brown. (People v. Odle (1988) 45 Cal.3d 386, 418-419, 420-421 [ 247 Cal.Rptr. 137 , 754 P.2d 184 ]; see People v.

Lobb v. Brown

208 Cal. 476 · California Supreme Court · Oct 31, 1929

Brown as specific findings, the latter must control in case of any inconsistency between said general finding and said specific findings. (Turner v. … (Hara don v. Clark, supra.)

Brown v. Cronise

21 Cal. 386 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1863

Briggs v. Brown

212 Cal. Rptr. 3d 871 · California Supreme Court · Feb 1, 2017

Jerry Brown, Governor of the State of California, Xavier Becerra, Attorney General of California, and the Judicial Council of California are ordered to show cause before this court, when the matter is called on calendar, … Com. v. Town of Emeryville (1968) 69 Cal.2d 533 , 537, 72 Cal.Rptr. 790 , 446 P.2d 790 .) Respondents' and Intervenor's returns must be served and filed on or before February 27, 2017.

People v. Brown

148 Cal. 743 · California Supreme Court · Feb 26, 1906

(People v. Phillips, 45 Cal. 44 ; People v. Clark, 49 Cal. 455 .) This not being the case, the appeal cannot be considered.” … The case thus presented comes within the rule as declared in People v. Owens, 123 Cal. 482 , [ 56 Pac. 251 ], and People v.