Case law

Schellin v. North Alaska Salmon Co.

167 Cal. 103 · California Supreme Court · Jan 16, 1914

Just below the shaft at a distance of about two feet there was a running board. The plaintiff placed a ladder against the running board, two to four feet from the pulley, and ascended to the running board. … (Brown v. Sharp-Hansen Con. Co., 159 Cal. 94 , [ 112 Pac. 874 ].) To the point made by appellant that plaintiff had equal means with it of knowing of the existence of the projecting set-screw, the obvious answer is: 1.

City of San Jose v. Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3

49 Cal. 4th 597 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 2010

In California, labor relations between most local public entities and their employees are governed by the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA) (Gov. … (Bleeck v.

Davoust v. City of Alameda

149 Cal. 69 · California Supreme Court · Mar 30, 1906

In Touchard v. … (See, also, Holland v. San Francisco, 7 Cal. 361 ; Argenti v. San Francisco, 16 Cal. 255 ; Brown v. Board of Education, 103 Cal. 531 , [ 37 Pac. 503 ].)

Greig v. Riordan

99 Cal. 316 · California Supreme Court · Aug 16, 1893

McKiernan v. … (Pomeroy on Remedies, 2d ed., sec. 132; Gradwohl v. Harris, 29 Cal. 154 ; Allen v. Brown, 44 N. Y. 228 ; Williams v. Norton, 3 Kan. 295 ; Toby v. Oregon Pacific R. R. Co., 98 Cal. 490 .)

Allied Amusement Co. of Los Angeles v. Bryam

201 Cal. 316 · California Supreme Court · Jun 6, 1927

(County of Los Angeles v. Hunt, supra.) … Co. v. Lelande, 175 Cal. 511 [ 166 Pac. 341 ]; Gadd v. McGuire, 69 Cal. App. 347 [ 231 Pac. 754 ].)

City of LA v. County of LA

9 Cal. 2d 624 · California Supreme Court · Sep 30, 1937

(Metropolitan Railroad Co. v. District of Columbia, 132 U.S. 1 [ 10 S.Ct. 19 , 33 L.Ed. 231 ]; Brown v. Board of Education, 148 Okl. 97 [ 298 P. 249 ]; City of Centerville v. Turner County, 25 S. … No. 34, 156 Okl. 5 [9 PaCal.2d 771], it was said, quoting from the syllabus in Brown v.

Henshaw v. Bd. of Supervisors of Butte Cty.

19 Cal. 150 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1861

for excess or want of jurisdiction. ( Whitney v. … The third section provides: “Any person may petition the Board of Supervisors for a license to keep a ferry or toll bridge, and if, in the discretion of the Board, such ferry or toll bridge be necessary, and the petitioner

Bonnell v. Medical Bd. of California

8 Cal. Rptr. 3d 532 · California Supreme Court · Dec 29, 2003

. (§ 11521(a); Gamm v. Board of Medical Quality Assurance (1982) 129 Cal.App.3d 34, 35-36 [ 181 Cal.Rptr. 23 ].) … (Agnew v.

M. F. Kemper Construction Co. v. City of Los Angeles

37 Cal. 2d 696 · California Supreme Court · Aug 28, 1951

Bromagin & Co. v. City of Bloomington, 234 Ill. 114 [ 84 N.E. 700 ]; Board of School Com’rs v. Bender, 36 Ind.App. 164 [ 72 N.E. 154 ]; Moffett, Hodgkins & Clarke Co. v. … (See Petrovich .v. City of Arcadia, 36 Cal.2d *705 78, 85 [ 222 P.2d 231 ]; Brown v. Town of Sebastopol, 153 Cal. 704, 709 [ 96 P. 363 , 19 L.RA.N.S. 178]; County of Sacramento v. Southern Pac.

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.

People ex rel. Taylor v. Bd. of Election Comm'rs

54 Cal. 404 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1880

Kalloch and others, compose said Board. … Y. 540 ; Thomas v. Mead, 36 Mo. 232 .) And again in the very late case of Maurer v. Mitchell, Tax Collector, etc., reported in 53 Cal., the Supreme Court uses the same language, and adopts the same view of the law.

Neary v. Peterson

1 Cal. 2d 703 · California Supreme Court · Oct 30, 1934

Respondent Brown, who was served as a defendant by a fictitious name, answered, denying ownership in said Carrie W. … Dist. v.

Retail Clerks' Union v. Superior Court

52 Cal. 2d 222 · California Supreme Court · May 19, 1959

We have concluded that the record does not *225 establish that exclusive jurisdiction is in the federal board and courts; that the ordinance is invalid for the reasons explained in Chavez v. … We are not prepared to hold that the allegations of bare conclusions of law as to jurisdiction establish any facts as to the effect of any alleged labor practice upon interstate commerce (see Brown v.

Diamond Match Co. v. Savercool

218 Cal. 665 · California Supreme Court · Aug 18, 1933

(Brown v. Bachelder, 214 Cal. 753 [ 7 Pac. (2d) 1027 ].) The intention to which courts give heed is an intention manifested by the owner’s acts and finding expression in his conduct. (City of Los Angeles v. … (Schwerdtle v. County of Placer, supra; People v. Myring, supra.)

Frankish v. Goodrich

157 Cal. 613 · California Supreme Court · Apr 15, 1910

Code, sec. 1576; Hughes v. Ewing, 93 Cal. 414 , [ 28 Pac. 1067 ]; Bay View School District v. Linscott, 99 Cal. 26 , [ 33 Pac. 781 ]; Kramm v. Bogue, 127 Cal. 122 , [ 59 Pac. 394 ].) … (Chico High School Board v. Board of Supervisors, 118 Cal. 116 , [ 50 Pac. 275 ]; Brown v. City of Visalia, 141 Cal. 372 , [ 74 Pac. 1042 ].)

People v. Williams

16 Cal. 3d 663 · California Supreme Court · Apr 2, 1976

Proc., § 1859; Mercer v. Perez (1968) 68 Cal.2d 104, 112 [ 65 Cal.Rptr. 315 , 436 P.2d 315 ]; Select Base Materials, Inc. v. Board of Equal. (1959) 51 Cal.2d 640, 645 [ 335 P.2d 672 ].) … Bynum (1971) 4 Cal.3d 589 [ 94 Cal.Rptr. 241 , 483 P.2d 1193 ] 7 and People v. Browning (1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 125 [ 119 Cal.Rptr. 420 ] 8 are overruled to the extent they conflict with the views expressed herein.

Illinois Trust & Savings Bank v. Pacific Railway Co.

115 Cal. 285 · California Supreme Court · Dec 14, 1896

(Kneeland v. American Loan etc. Co., 136 U. S. 89 ; Kneeland v. Bass Foundry etc. Works, 140 U. S. 592 .) … (King v. Davis, 34 Cal. 100 ; Horton v. Dominguez, 68 Cal. 642 ; Moore v. Campbell, 72 Cal. 251 ; Sukeforth v. Lord, 87 Cal. 399 .)

People v. Adams

137 Cal. 580 · California Supreme Court · Nov 8, 1902

And so, without multiplying quotations upon the question, may be cited: Ward v. State, 28 Ala. 53 ; State v. Nelson, 58 Iowa, 208 ; State v. Lee, 22 Min. 207 ; 1 Davis v. Foster, 68 Ind. 238 ; Craig v. … Craig, 5 Rawle, 91 ; Johnson v. Brown, 51 Tex. 65 ; Davis v. Franke, 33 Grat. 413; Rice’s Criminal Evidence, see. 380; Taylor’s Criminal Evidence, sec. 350. In the instructions we perceive no error.

People v. Collins

54 Cal. 2d 57 · California Supreme Court · Apr 22, 1960

Brown and Collins were sentenced to a state prison, and Scott was committed to the Youth Authority. … In People v.

People v. McCue

150 Cal. 195 · California Supreme Court · Jan 8, 1907

(See Perry v. Quackenbush, 105 Cal. 299, 305 , [ 38 Pac. 740 ]; Rankin v. Newman, 107 Cal. 602, 608 , [ 40 Pac. 1024 ]; Com. Bank v. Redfield, 122 Cal. 405, 408, [ 55 Pac. 160 ] ; Brown v. Mutual Reserve etc. … refused to accept the same, and that the board of supervisors had abandoned the same as public highways.