Case law

Silva v. Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control

51 Cal. 2d 885 · California Supreme Court · Dec 12, 1958

Brown, Attorney General, and Wiley W. Manuel, Deputy Attorney General, for Appellants. Golden & Stefan, Theodore Golden, Robert N. Stefan and J. Bruce Fratis for Respondents. Memorandum SHENK, J. … A similar question was involved in Pesce v. Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, this day decided (ante, p. 310 [ 333 P.2d 15 ]).

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.

People Ex Rel. Stone v. Jefferds

126 Cal. 296 · California Supreme Court · Oct 12, 1899

The suit was brought in the county of Yuba to have the Brown’s Valley Irrigation District declared to have no legal existence. … of San Francisco which the legislature had directed the board of state harbor commissioners to take into their possession.

Turner v. Billagram

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

Whitehead v. Sweet

126 Cal. 67 · California Supreme Court · Sep 14, 1899

(While v. Lyons, 42 Cal. 279 ; Watson v. Sutro, 86 Cal. 528 .) … (Brinkerhoff v. Brown, 6 Johns. Ch. 139 .) Where a court of equity has once obtained jurisdiction it will decide the whole case.

Lantz v. City of Los Angeles

185 Cal. 262 · California Supreme Court · Mar 5, 1921

(Leverone v. Weakeley, 155 Cal. 395 , [ 101 Pac. 304 ]; Hartley v. Vermillion, 141 Cal. 339 , [ 74 Pac. 987 ]; Sherwood v. Ahart, 35 Cal. … In the case of Burke v.

People v. Woody

61 Cal. 2d 716 · California Supreme Court · Aug 24, 1964

Barnette (1942) 319 U.S. 624 [ 63 S.Ct. 1178 , 87 L.Ed. 1628 , 147 A.L.R. 674 ]; Braunfeld v. Brown (1960) 366 U.S. 599 [ 81 S.Ct. 1144 , 6 L.Ed.2d 563]; Cantwell v. Connecticut, supra, 310 U.S. 296 ; Reynolds v. … (Sherbert v. Verner, supra, 374 U.S. 398, 406 ; In re Jenison, supra, 375 U.S. 14; Braunfeld v. Brown, supra, 366 U.S. 599, 613-614 ; Cantwell v.

In Re Vaughan

189 Cal. 491 · California Supreme Court · Sep 12, 1922

Proctor employed appellant to take an appeal in a ease entitled Riva v. … In his answer appellant alleged he had conducted the case of Riva v.

McCourtney v. Fortune

42 Cal. 387 · California Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1871

Silver v. State Bar

13 Cal. 3d 134 · California Supreme Court · Dec 13, 1974

Although this court generally attaches great weight to the disciplinary recommendation of the board, we impose more severe discipline when it is warranted. (Fielding v. State Bar, supra, 9 Cal.3d 446, 452 ; Glickman v. … (Browning v. Browning (1929) 208 Cal. 518, 525 [ 282 P. 503 ]; Harrold v. Harrold (1950) 100 Cal.App.2d 601, 605 [ 224 P.2d 66 ]; 6 Witkin, Cal.

Nolan v. Smith

137 Cal. 360 · California Supreme Court · Sep 19, 1902

The defendant Smith was a justice of the peace, and defendants Packard and Brown were sureties on his official bond. … Co. v. Locke, 107 Ind. 9 .) ” (See, also, Fox v. Hale & Norcross Co., 112 Cal. 571 ; Peck v. Vandenberg, 30 Cal. 22 , and cases there cited; Welsh v. Allen, 54 Cal. 211 .) Mr.

Levee Dist. No. 9 v. Farmer

23 L.R.A. 388 · California Supreme Court · Jan 26, 1894

Chauncey, 13 Cal. 11 ); and its judgments are final and cannot be attacked collaterally, but may be reviewed upon certiorari where the jurisdiction of the board has been exceeded. (Fall v. Paine, 23 Cal. 303 ; Murray v. … The cases of Schaufele v. Doyle, 86 Cal. 107 , and Brown v.

McCandless v. City of Los Angeles

214 Cal. 67 · California Supreme Court · Sep 29, 1931

(Bigelow v. Ballerino, 111 Cal. 559 [ 44 Pac. 307 ]; Brown v. Board of Supervisors, 124 Cal. 274 [ 57 Pac. 82 ].) … Any language in that decision which would seem to run *71 counter to the holding in Geurkink v. City of Petaluma, supra, and in the present case must be disregarded. In Brown v.

City of Redlands v. Brook

151 Cal. 474 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1907

The material facts alleged, and by the demurrer admitted, are that Redlands is a city of the sixth class; that its board of trustees at a regular meeting duly adopted, by a vote of more than two thirds of all its mem *476 … A very instructive opinion of the supreme court of Minnesota in a ease closely resembling this, and in which the authorities are extensively reviewed, is reported in State v. Brown, 97 Minn. 402 , [ 106 N.

Green v. Covillaud

10 Cal. 317 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1858

The case of Brown v. Covillaud. (6 Cal. … We say no excuse is offered, for that made in the original bill has been passed upon in the case of Brown v. Covillaud, and found entirely nugatory.

Mooney v. Bartenders Union Local No. 284

48 Cal. 2d 841 · California Supreme Court · Aug 2, 1957

The demand was refused by Hyatt, who had control of the records, and his action was upheld by the executive board of the union. … Duffy, 90 OhioApp. 252 [ 103 N.E.2d 769, 778 ] ; Schrank v. Brown, 80 N.Y.S.2d 452, 455 .) Opportunity for employment in the trades in most places depends upon union membership.

In Re Rogers

28 Cal. 3d 429 · California Supreme Court · Nov 24, 1980

(Thomas v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1970) 3 Cal.3d 335, 338 [ 90 Cal.Rptr. 586 , 475 P.2d 858 ]; Hasson v. Cozens (1970) 1 Cal.3d 576 [ 83 Cal.Rptr. 161 , 463 P.2d 385 ]; De La Vigne v. … In re Brown (1967) 67 Cal.2d 339, 342 [ 62 Cal.Rptr. 6 , 431 P.2d 630 ].) It specifically considered the invalid priors as evidence that petitioner was unfit for earlier release.

Doyle v. State Bar

15 Cal. 3d 973 · California Supreme Court · Jan 30, 1976

, we may adopt the board's conclusion concerning the guilt of an accused attorney but revise its recommendations as to the discipline to be imposed. ( Browne v. … v.

People ex rel. Pacific Mail Steamship Co. v. Board of Supervisors

50 Cal. 282 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1875

Co. v. The Board of Equalization of Placer County, 43 Cal. 365 .) … (People v. Ashbury, 46 Cal. 523 .) In either view, therefore, no excess of jurisdiction appears, and in either view the writ must be dismissed.

Gore v. Market Street Railway Co.

4 Cal. 2d 154 · California Supreme Court · Jul 31, 1935

On the evening of the accident, she left home and proceeded to the intersection, intending to board an eastbound or down-town street ear. … As was said in Brown v. Pacific Elec. Ry.