Case law

Brown v. Cronise

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

Brown v. Ayres

33 Cal. 525 · California Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1867

Brown, and to the Constable of one of the townships in said city and county on an execution held by him for collection in Vantine et al. v. Brown. … (Countryman v. Boyer, 3 Howard Pr. 386; Robinson v. Weeks, 6 Howard Pr. 161; and Richardson v. Ainsworth, 20 Howard Pr. 530.)

Brown v. Jordan

12 Cal. 2d 75 · California Supreme Court · Aug 31, 1938

Substantially the same contention was made by petitioners in Epperson v. Jordan , S. F. No. 16101, ante, p. 61, and Kornmann v. Jordan, S. F. No. 16098, ante, p. 61 [ 82 Pac. (2d) 445 ].) … In that case it was held that this contention was unsound, and the decision of Wright v. Jordan, supra, was reaffirmed.

Mateer v. Brown

1 Cal. 231 · California Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1850

(See Grogan & Lent v. Ruckle, ante, p. 193, and cases there cited.) … (Trimble v. Thorner, 16 John. 89 ; Osgood v. Manhattan Co. 3 Cow. 612 .) Our former decision must stand. Ordered accordingly.

Silver v. Brown

63 Cal. 2d 316 · California Supreme Court · Sep 16, 1965

Although these deviations may be constitutionally impermissible under Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 [ 84 S.Ct. 526 , 11 L.Ed.2d 481 ] (see also Reynolds v. … Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 578 [ 84 S.Ct. 1362 , 12 L.Ed.2d 506 ]; Silver v. *318 Brown, ante, pp. 270, 279 [ 46 Cal.Rptr. 308 , 405 P.2d 132 ]), we have concluded that we should not assume jurisdiction at this time to consider

Brown v. Harter

18 Cal. 76 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1861

Some obscurity possibly exists in the opinion in Hancock Ditch Co. v.

Baldwin v. Brown

193 Cal. 345 · California Supreme Court · Mar 12, 1924

(Kerr v. Hitt, 75 Ill. 51 ; Kellogg v. Carrico, 47 Mo. 157 ; Benkendorf v. Yincens, 52 Mo. 441 ; Turney v. Blomstrom, 62 Neb. 616 [ 87 N. W. 339 ]; Lynch v. Durfee, 101 Mich. 171 [ 45 Am. St. Rep. 404 , 24 L. R. … They are chiefly Odell v. Cox, 151 Cal. 70 [ 90 Pac. 194 ]; Winbigler v. Sherman, 175 Cal. 270 [ 165 Pac. 943 ] ; Bauer v. Hertweck, 175 Cal. 278 [ 165 Pac. 946 ]; and Bock v. Losekamp, 179 Cal. 674 [ 179 Pac. 516 ].

Brown v. O'Connor

1 Cal. 419 · California Supreme Court · Apr 15, 1851

Lucas, 12 Pet. 410, 437 , and United States v. … {See cases cited and authorities referred, to in the case of Woodworth v. Fulton et al., ante, p. 295, and Suñol v. Hepburn et al., ante, p. 254.)

Brown v. Plummer

70 Cal. 337 · California Supreme Court · Jul 30, 1886

In Hill v. Finnigan, 54 Cal. 312 , 313, a judgment was entered in the court below on the 12th of August, 1879, and on the 5th of December an order was entered deny, ing a motion for a new trial.

Brown v. Covillaud

6 Cal. 566 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1856

(Gazley v. Price, 16 Johns., 169 .) On the other hand, if words of covenant and warranty are made use of in the instrument, they refer to the character of the estate—as was the case in Finney v. … The judge below, in deciding this case, seems to have relied on the decision in Parker v. Parmalee, 20 Johns., 131 , in which Chief Justice Spencer, in speaking of the decision of the chancellor, in Clute v.

Hartley v. Brown

51 Cal. 465 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1876

(Estrada v. Murphy, 19 Cal. 272 ; Clark v. Lockwood, 21 Cal. 222 ; Emeric v. Penniman, 26 Cal. 119 ; O’Connell v. Dougherty, 32 Cal. 462 ; Schmitt v. Giovanari, 43 Cal. 617 .) In Emeric v. … In O’Connell v.

Brown v. Bachelder

214 Cal. 753 · California Supreme Court · Jan 30, 1932

Anderson v. … (County of Inyo v. Given, 183 Cal. 415 [ 191 Pac. 688 ]; Hayward v. Manzer, 70 Cal. 474 [ 13 Pac. 141]; 9 Cal. Jur. 52.)

Brady v. Brown

20 Cal. 520 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1862

The suit was brought to obtain a settlement of the accounts of a partnership which had existed between the plaintiff and the defendant Brown. … It was agreed that, in case the indebtedness *522 should exceed the estimate, Brown should be responsible for the excess in San Francisco, and the plaintiff for the excess in Santa Cruz.

Lee v. Brown

18 Cal. 3d 110 · California Supreme Court · Sep 17, 1976

We stated in Slawinski v. … (See, e.g., Schubert v.

Brown v. Moore

61 Cal. 432 · California Supreme Court · Sep 28, 1882

Brown, Constable, and W. … (Hartman v. Olvera, 51 Cal. 501 .)

Brown v. Curtis

128 Cal. 193 · California Supreme Court · Mar 24, 1900

(Read v. Buffum, 79 Cal. 77 ; 12 Am. St. Rep. 131 ; Ford v. Bushard, 116 Cal. 273 .) … (Citing, also, White v. Moses, 11 Cal. 70 ; Bank of Shasta v. Boyd, 99 Cal. 604 , and some other cases.) Respondent fails to distinguish between the question of capacity and the question of right to sue.

Brown v. Sennett

68 Cal. 225 · California Supreme Court · Dec 22, 1885

There is no doubt that Joyce and Frenchie were fellow-servants of BroAvn; and if their wrongful act caused Brown’s death, the defendant as their common employer would not be liable (Hogan v. C. P. R. … But Chief Justice Bigelow, in Sweeny v.

Robinett v. Brown

167 Cal. 735 · California Supreme Court · May 26, 1914

(Wilson v. Nugent, 125 Cal. 280 , [ 57 Pac. 1008 ]; Buell & Co. v. Brown, 131 Cal. 158 , [ 63 Pac. 167 ]). … It becomes the duty and the right of the court to retain the action and render a personal judgment in a proper amount even if that amount be less than three hundred dollars (Mannix v.

Hubbard v. Brown

50 Cal. 3d 189 · California Supreme Court · Feb 15, 1990

(Placer County Water Agency v. Jonas, supra, 275 Cal.App.2d at 698 .) This concept has been applied to federal grazing permits. (Board of Supervisors v. Archer, supra, 18 Cal.App.3d at 725-726.) … (Board of Supervisors v. Archer (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 717, 725 [ 96 Cal.Rptr. 379 ].) Our holding is not affected by the fact that the land involved in this case is owned by a governmental entity.

Pillsbury v. Brown

47 Cal. 477 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1874

.: This is an appeal from the judgment of the District Court of the county of San Joaquin, awarding a writ of mandamus, by which the appellant Brown, who is the Police Judge of the city of Stockton, is directed to pay over