Case law

Smith v. Kern County Medical Assn.

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

Brown. … (Levy v. Magnolia Lodge, I. O. O. F., supra; Lawson v. Hewell, 118 Cal. 613 [ 50 Pac. 763 , 49 L. R. A. 400].)

Sunderlin v. State Bar

33 Cal. 2d 785 · California Supreme Court · Apr 28, 1949

The final correspondence between Brown and. … On appeal from the trial court’s judgment in that action in favor of the Leonard estate, the District Court of Appeal held (Merchants Credit Assn. v.

Associated Constr. & Eng'g v. WORKERS'COMP. APP. BD.

22 Cal. 3d 829 · California Supreme Court · Dec 19, 1978

v. … Much of the controversy centers on the effect of the amendments on the employer's lien and the rule of Brown . (See Van Nuis v. Los Angeles Soap Co. (1973) 36 Cal. App.3d 222 [ 111 Cal. Rptr. 398 ]; but see Marrujo v.

People ex rel. Dickenson v. Banvard

27 Cal. 470 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1865

(Mateer v. Brown, 1 Cal. 221 ; Kiler v. Kimball, 10 Cal. 268 ; McGarrity v. Byington, 12 Cal. 429 .) Second—“ The Court erred in refusing the testimony of Fellows and Spear.” … (Gagliardo v. Hoberlin , 18 Cal. 395 ; Deputy v. Stapleford, 19 Cal. 302 ; Allen v. Fennon, ante 68.) Judgment affirmed.

In re Flaherty

105 Cal. 558 · California Supreme Court · Jan 6, 1895

Rep. 27 ); prohibiting the erecting or repairing of a wooden building without the permission of the board of aldermen (Hine v. … Co. v. Brown, 67 Ind. 45 ; 33 Am. Rep. 73 ; Sawyer v. Davis, 136 Mass. 239 ; 49 Am. Rep. 27 .)

Linnick v. State Bar

62 Cal. 2d 17 · California Supreme Court · Nov 5, 1964

(See Hildebrand v. … (Browne v. State Bar, 45 Cal.2d 165 [ 287 P.2d 745 ]; Lowe v. State Bar, 40 Cal.2d 564 [254 P.2d 506]; McGrath v. State Bar, 21 Cal.2d 737 [ 135 P.2d 1 ].) It is ordered that Albert R.

San Francisco Bureau of Governmental Research v. Board of Public Works

187 Cal. 795 · California Supreme Court · Dec 9, 1921

This is a companion case to Coldwell v. Board of Public Works of the City and County of San Francisco et al., ante, p. 510, [ 202 Pac. 879 ], and the same issues are involved here as were involved in that case. … Defendants make no objections to the interest of the petitioner in the data which is sought to be inspected other than those advanced in the case of Coldwell v.

Jenkins v. Knight

46 Cal. 2d 220 · California Supreme Court · Feb 14, 1956

Board of Trustees, 96 Cal.App. 705 [ 274 P. 1015 ]; Hilliker v. Board of Trustees, 91 Cal.App. 521 [ 267 P. 367 ]; Magoon v. Heath, 79 Cal.App. 632 [ 250 P. 583 ]; Ratto v. … Dist., 31 Cal.App. 162 [ 159 P. 985 ]; Osborn v. Board of Supervisors, 27 Cal.App. 85 [ 148 P. 970 ]; Bigelow v. Board of Supervisors, 18 Cal.App. 715 [ 124 P. 554 ]; Locher v.

Coon v. Freeman

1 Cal. 3d 542 · California Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1970

(See Silver v. Brown (1966) 63 Cal.2d 841, 845 [ 48 Cal.Rptr. 609 , 409 P.2d 689 ].) There are no such considerations in this case. Section 9603 provides for the orderly management of a nonprofit corporation. … (Driscoll v. City of Los Angeles (1967) 67 Cal.2d 297, 305 [ 61 Cal.Rptr. 661 , 431 P.2d 245 ] and cases there cited.) The judgment is affirmed.

Lewis v. Superior Court of L. A. Cnty.

220 Cal. Rptr. 3d 319 · California Supreme Court · Jul 17, 2017

(Brown Unveils Real Time Statewide Prescription Drug Monitoring System (Sept. 15, 2009) <https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/brown-unveils- real-time-statewide-prescription-drug-monitoring-system> [as of July 17, 2017] … (People v. Barksdale (1972) 8 Cal.3d 320, 333.) The Board relies on Pating v.

Bell v. Wyman

147 Cal. 514 · California Supreme Court · Aug 10, 1905

This old man was a cripple and so nearly helpless that, in addition to fifteen dollars for his board, he paid Mrs. Wyman twenty dollars a month to take care of him. … Added to this, Brown was fretful and fault-finding, all of which Mrs. Wyman bore with patience. Some two or three months after Brown's death Mrs.

Estate of Blake

137 Cal. 429 · California Supreme Court · Oct 7, 1902

Code, sec. 1369; Estate of Williams, 112 Cal. 521 . 1 ) The case cannot be distinguished in principle from that of Esmond v. Brown, 18 R. I. 48, cited by the appellant.

Dyer v. McCorkle

208 Cal. 216 · California Supreme Court · Sep 26, 1929

(Brown v. Feather River Lbr. Co., 203 Cal. 493, 498 [57 A. L. R. 812, 265 Pac. 203 ]; Lawrence v. Kaul Lbr. Co., 171 Ala. 300 [ 55 South. 111 ]; Harvey v. Deep River Logging Co., 49 Or. 583 [12 L. R. A. (N. … In the case of Giannini v.

Smyrniotis v. Local Joint Executive Board of Hotel & Restaurant Employees & Bartenders International Union

64 Cal. 2d 30 · California Supreme Court · Jan 27, 1966

Co. v. National Marine etc. Assn. (1953) 40 Cal.2d 433 [ 254 P.2d 578 ], and Globe D. Lunch Co. v. … Lunch v.

Wilson v. Southern Pacific Railroad

62 Cal. 164 · California Supreme Court · Nov 23, 1882

(Algier v. Steamer Marie, 14 Cal. 167 ; Brown v. Brown, 41 id. 88; Trenor v. C. P. R. R. Co., 50 id. 222.) … (Harris v. Packwood, 3 Taunt. 264; Beardslee v. Richardson, 11 Wend. 26 ; Browne v. Johnson, 29 Tex. 43 ; Lamb v. Camden and Amboy R. R. Co., 46 N. Y. 271 ; Jackson v. Sac. Val. R. R. Co., 23 Cal. 269 .)

People v. Chaves

122 Cal. 134 · California Supreme Court · Sep 20, 1898

(People v. Turley, 50 Cal. 469 ; People v. Lee Gam, 69 Cal. 552; People v. Chavez, 103 Cal. 408 .) … (People v. Kern, 61 Cal. 244 ; People v. Brown, 76 Cal. 573 .) The question objected to, which was propounded to the witness Downey, was entirely proper.

Cook v. Civil Service Commission

160 Cal. 589 · California Supreme Court · Aug 24, 1911

(See, also, Brown v. Board of Supervisors, 124 Cal. 276 , [ 57 Pac. 82 ] ; Borchard v. Supervisors, 144 Cal. 13 , [ 77 Pac. 708 ].) Whitney v. … State Board of Canvassers, 18 Idaho 596 , [ 111 Pac. 133 ]; State v. Osburn, 24 Nev. 195 , [ 51 Pac. 837 ]; Bouldin et al. v. Lockhart, 3 Bax. (Tenn.) 262; Esmeralda Co. v.

Turner v. Billagram

2 Cal. 520 · California Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1852

In Re Marriage of Skaden

19 Cal. 3d 679 · California Supreme Court · Jul 19, 1977

. * In In re Marriage of Brown (1976) 15 Cal.3d 838 [ 126 Cal.Rptr. 633 , 544 P.2d 561 ], this court, overruling a long line of prior decisions originating in French v. … (Brown, supra, 15 Cal.3d at p. 847; Smith v.

White Sewing Machine Co. v. Courtney

141 Cal. 674 · California Supreme Court · Jan 18, 1904

Judgment was entered against the defendant Courtney, but in favor of the defendant Brown. The appeal is from the latter judgment. … This sale was a future transaction with relation to which the contract of suretyship was revoked, and for which Brown could not be held responsible.