Case law

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

Gilliam v. Brown

116 Cal. 454 · California Supreme Court · Apr 7, 1897

Bids will be opened on November 10, 1891, in presence of the bidders by the full board of trustees. The trustees reserve the right to reject any and all bids.

People v. Brown

2 Cal. Unrep. 701 · California Supreme Court · Sep 1, 1886

Code, sec. 1170; People v. Cotta, 49 Cal. 166 ; People v. Vasquez, 49 Cal. 560 ; People v. Taing, 53 Cal. 602 ; People v. Riley, 65 Cal. 107 , 3 Pac. 413 . … The court did not err in its ruling admitting in evidence the deposition of Sharon: People v. Cunningham, 66 Cal. 668 , 4 Pac. 1144 , 6 Pac. 703 , 846. In the instructions given by the court we find no error.

Craig v. Brown

114 Cal. 480 · California Supreme Court · Oct 8, 1896

Mills v. Brown

205 Cal. 38 · California Supreme Court · Aug 20, 1928

Brown to plaintiff. It is too clear for controversy that the foregoing facts authorize the maintenance of a suit by the plaintiff against defendant Brown as well as the other defendants named (Mathew v. … In Harper v.

Jennings v. Brown

114 Cal. 307 · California Supreme Court · Sep 18, 1896

It subsequently appears-that all ballots were counted, and as counted the tally stood for Brown one hundred and fifty-four votes, for Jennings one hundred and twenty-eight. … This state of things existed in Tebbe v. Smith, 108 Cal. 101 ; 49 Am. St. Rep. 68 . Upon all the ballots cast at one precinct there appeared written under the head of “Justice of the Peace” “C. G. Brown, Republican.”

People v. Brown

207 Cal. 172 · California Supreme Court · Apr 30, 1929

The defendants and appellants, Anthony Brown, Roy Stokes, Walter E. Burke, James H. Gregg and James Gleason and defendant Albert M. … (People v. Estorga, 206 Cal. 81 [ 273 Pac. 575 ].)

Brown v. Connolly

62 Cal. 2d 391 · California Supreme Court · Feb 8, 1965

Victor Brown, plaintiff and appellant, is a minor child 1 who while riding his bicycle was struck by a car driven by Gregory Peter Connolly, defendant and respondent. … (Brown v. Connolly (1962) 206 Cal.App.2d 582 [ 24 Cal.Rptr. 57 ].) The second trial also resulted in a judgment for defendant.

Gee v. Brown

14 Cal. 3d 571 · California Supreme Court · May 5, 1975

(Brown v. Allen (1953) 344 U.S. 443, 540 [ 97 L.Ed. 469, 532-533 , 73 S.Ct. 397 ] (concurring opn.).) … (Accord, Williams v. U.S. Board of Parole (D.

Marlenee v. Brown

21 Cal. 2d 668 · California Supreme Court · Mar 1, 1943

(Williams v. Borgwardt, 119 Cal. 80 [ 51 P. 15 ]; Morrow v. Graves, 77 Cal. 218 [ 19 P. 489 ]; Fish v. Benson, 71 Cal. 428 [ 12 P. 454 ] ; Chapman v. … (Goodman v. Goodman, 212 Cal. 730 [ 300 P. 449 ] ; Donahue v. Sweeny, 171 Cal. 388 [ 153 P. 708 ]; Follmer v.

Smith v. Brown

59 Cal. 672 · California Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1881

The Court: On the authority of People v. Hill, 7 Cal. 102 , the judgment is affirmed.

People v. Brown

201 Cal. Rptr. 3d 256 · California Supreme Court · Apr 27, 2016

Further action in this matter is deferred pending consideration and disposition of a related issue in Harris v. Superior Court, S231489 **924 (see Cal.

Johnston v. Brown

115 Cal. 694 · California Supreme Court · Jan 28, 1897

(Ford v. Doyle, 44 Cal. 635 ; Bowers v. Cherokee Bob, 46 Cal. 279 .) A previous denial of the same motion may be a sufficient reason for the court to refuse to entertain it again (Code Civ. … (Hitchcock v. McElrath, 69 Cal. 634 .) The order is affirmed. Van Fleet, J., and McFarland, J., concurred.

People v. Brown

27 Cal. 500 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1865

(People v. Vance, 21 Cal. 403 ; Wharton’s Precedents, 190.) We cannot reverse the judgment on the ground that the verdict is contrary to the evidence. … In The People v.

Brown v. Mann

71 Cal. 192 · California Supreme Court · Sep 30, 1886

The proceedings had after the transfer of the note and mortgage by plaintiff (Charles Brown) to Adolphus Brown, with the suit thereon, must be disregarded, because Charles Brown, being the administrator of the estate of Abel … Mann, could not, under the name of Adolphus Brown, have an action for his own benefit against himself as administrator to foreclose the mortgage.

Brown v. Stark

83 Cal. 636 · California Supreme Court · May 2, 1890

Brown, plaintiff’s son, testified of it as “a lane from the Alameda back to the north end of Pillot’s lot”; and further said: “This lane was fifty feet wide when father bought it.” … The court having found an acceptance of the offer to dedicate, and a user by the public as well as by the purchasers of lots, the cases of People v. Reed, 81 Cal. 70 , and City of Eureka v.

Barrett v. Brown

26 Cal. 2d 328 · California Supreme Court · May 8, 1945

The defendant, Leonard Brown, hereinafter referred to as the defen *329 dant, bought the property at the delinquent tax sale and relied on a tax deed of date July 20, 1942. … In City of Compton v.

Clark v. Brown

141 Cal. 93 · California Supreme Court · Nov 21, 1903

with William Brown, to which contract the defendant Best Manufacturing Company was not a party. … This was so decided in Duncan v. Hawn, 104 Cal. 10 . 4. There was no error in giving judgment for costs against the defendant the Best Manufacturing Company.

Gilliam v. Brown

126 Cal. 160 · California Supreme Court · Sep 18, 1899

(Gilliam v. Brown, 116 Cal. 454 .) … Brown, supra), and a written bid by plaintiff, and his bond for the performance of the work as provided for in the proposal; and these constituted a written contract.

Brown v. Howard

1 Cal. 423 · California Supreme Court · Apr 15, 1851

under which the sheriff of San Francisco seized a quantity of coal on board the ship Orphan. … In section 388, the case of Pinney v. Wells, (10 Conn.