Case law

Cowart v. Union Paving Co.

216 Cal. 375 · California Supreme Court · Sep 23, 1932

(Brown v. Silverton, 97 Or. 441 [ 190 Pac. 971 ], where the authorities are extensively discussed.) See, also, Bellingham Bay etc. Co. v. New Whatcom, 172 U. S. 314 [ 43 L. Ed. 460 , 19 Sup. Ct. … (Nottage v. City of Portland, supra; Richman v. Board of Supervisors, etc., 77 Iowa, 513 [ 14 Am. St. Rep. 308 , 4 L. R. A. 445, 42 N. W. 422 ]; Kansas City v. Silver, supra.)

Estate of Sorensen

44 Cal. 2d 306 · California Supreme Court · Apr 15, 1955

(Estate of Pendergast, 143 Cal. 135, 140 [ 76 P. 962 ]; see also People v. Roach, 76 Cal. 294, 296 [ 18 P. 407 ]; Estate of Laurence, 84 Cal.App.2d 500, 505-506 [ 191 P.2d 109 ].) … In State v.

People ex rel. Department of Conservation v. El Dorado County

36 Cal. 4th 971 · California Supreme Court · Aug 8, 2005

Code, § 11180 [capacity to sue]; see also Brown v. … Younger v.

People ex rel. Bd. of State Harbor Comm'rs v. Broadway Wharf Co.

31 Cal. 33 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1866

the fund under the style of the Board of Commissioners of the Sinking Fund. … (Brown v. Martin, 25 Cal. 82 .) This was not done, and it is too late to seek its shelter for the first time in this Court. In both of the cases cited by counsel, (People v. Van Rensselaer, 9 N. Y. 318 , and People v.

In Re Fahey

8 Cal. 3d 842 · California Supreme Court · Feb 13, 1973

(Hallinan v. Committee of Bar Examiners, supra, 65 Cal.2d 447, 461-462 ; see Yakov v. Board of Medical Examiners, supra, 68 Cal.2d 67, 73-74 .) *854 Clearly we do not condone respondent’s income tax delinquencies. … Brown (Ky. 1957) 302 S.W.2d 834 (no discipline); Kentucky State Bar Assn. v.

Roman Catholic Welfare Corp. v. City of Piedmont

45 Cal. 2d 325 · California Supreme Court · Oct 27, 1955

(Whitmore v. Brown, 207 Cal. 473 [ 279 P. 447 ] ; Esberg v. Badaracco, 202 Cal. 110 [ 259 P. 730 ] ; Anderson v. … Ransom v.

Hart-Wood Lumber Co. v. Bonaly

192 Cal. 180 · California Supreme Court · Oct 8, 1923

Rep. 199 , 18 Pac. 248 ]; Browning v. McNear, 158 Cal. 525 [ 111 Pac. 541 ]). … In the case of Browning v.

People Ex Rel. Attorney-General v. Bd. of Supervisors of Shasta County

75 Cal. 179 · California Supreme Court · Feb 25, 1888

ascertained by the board, if two thirds of the legal votes casts by those voting on the proposition are in favor of any particular place, the board must give notice of the result by posting notices thereof in all the election … (Dickey v. Reed, 78 111. 261.) For these reasons, we are of the opinion that the judgment of the court below should be affirmed. Belcher, C. C., and Hayne, C., concurred.

People v. Latimer

5 Cal. 4th 1203 · California Supreme Court · Oct 4, 1993

(Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, supra, 491 U.S. at pp. 172-173 [ 105 L.Ed.2d at p. 148 ]; see also Board of Supervisors v. … Because the Neal opinion cited People v. Brown, supra, 49 Cal.2d 577 , the Neal test is sometimes referred to as the “Brown-Neal test.” (E.g., People v.

People v. Wade

44 Cal. 3d 975 · California Supreme Court · Mar 24, 1988

(See People v. Brown (1985) 40 Cal.3d 512, 541 [ 220 Cal.Rptr. 637 , 709 P.2d 440 ], vacated sub nom. California v. Brown (1987) 479 U.S. 538 [ 93 L.Ed.2d 934 , 107 S.Ct. 837 ]; People v. … (See People v. Allen, supra, 42 Cal.3d at pp. 1276-1280; People v. Brown, supra, 40 Cal.3d 512 .)

Veterans' Finance Committee of 1943 v. Betts

55 Cal. 2d 397 · California Supreme Court · Feb 16, 1961

Brown, Governor of the State of California; Alan Cranston, State Controller ; John E. Carr, Director of Finance; Joseph M. … (People v. Thompson, 67 Cal. 627, 628 [ 9 P. 833 ]; Kenfield v. Irwin, 52 Cal. 164, 169 ; McKune v. John B. Weller, 11 Cal. 49 , 62 et seq.; People v. Porter, 6 Cal. 26, 29 .)

Rosales v. Depuy Ace Medical Co.

92 Cal. Rptr. 2d 465 · California Supreme Court · Feb 7, 2000

(See McCoy v. … J., Kennard, J., Baxter, J., Chin, J., and Brown, J., concurred.

People v. Russell

50 Cal. 4th 1228 · California Supreme Court · Nov 15, 2010

Brown (2004) 33 Cal.4th 382, 398 [ 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 624 , 93 P.3d 244 ], quoting Payne v. Tennessee, supra, 501 U.S. at p. 823.) … (People v. Brown (1988) 46 Cal.3d 432, 446-449 [ 250 Cal.Rptr. 604 , 758 P.2d 1135 ]; People v. Avena (1996) 13 Cal.4th 394, 433-435 [ 53 Cal.Rptr.2d 301 , 916 P.2d 1000 ].)

Clark v. Burleigh

4 Cal. 4th 474 · California Supreme Court · Dec 24, 1992

(Kaplan v. County of Los Angeles (9th Cir. 1990) 894 F.2d 1076, 1080 ; Patterson v. Board of Supervisors (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 22, 29-30 [ 248 Cal.Rptr. 253 ]; Gebert v. … (See, e.g., Brown v. Hartlage (1982) 456 U.S. 45 [ 71 L.Ed.2d 732 , 102 S.Ct. 1523 ] [barring any candidate from promising, if elected, to serve at a salary less than that fixed by law]; Eu v.

County Sanitation District No. 2 v. Los Angeles County Employees' Ass'n, Local 660

38 Cal. 3d 564 · California Supreme Court · May 13, 1985

(Keyishian v. Board of Regents, supra, 385 U.S. 589, 602-603 ; Elfbrandt v. Russell, 384 U.S. 11, 15 , et seq.; N.A.A.C.P. v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 432-433 ; Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 479, 488 ; Bagley v. … (Labor Board v. Jones & Laughlin (1937) 301 U.S. 1, 33 [ 81 L.Ed. 893, 909 , 57 S.Ct. 615 , 108 A.L.R. 1352 ].)

Nash v. City of Santa Monica

37 Cal. 3d 97 · California Supreme Court · Oct 25, 1984

Co. v. … (Marcus Brown Holding Co., *106 Inc. v. Feldman (1921) 256 U.S. 170, 199 [ 65 L.Ed. 877, 889 , 41 S.Ct. 465 ]; accord, Marquam Investment Corp. v. Beers (1980) 47 Ore.App. 711 [ 615 P.2d 1064 ].)

Southern California Edison Co. v. Peevey

3 Cal. Rptr. 3d 703 · California Supreme Court · Aug 21, 2003

In Sacramento Newspaper Guild v. Sacramento County Board of Supervisors (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 41 [ 69 Cal.Rptr. 480 ], the court held that the enactment of the Ralph M. Brown Act (Gov. … The Attorney General noted, first, that the Brown Act’s “personnel exception” (Gov. Code, § 54957) has been construed to permit closed-session action on appointments and dismissals (see Lucas v.

City & County of San Francisco v. United Ass'n of Journeymen & Apprentices of the Plumbing & Pipefitting Industry of the United States & Canada

42 Cal. 3d 810 · California Supreme Court · Oct 27, 1986

No. 2 v. … Code, § 3512 et seq.), which also vests authority to adjudicate unfair labor practice claims in the Public Employment Relations Board. Most local employees fall within the scope of the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (Gov.

County of Los Angeles v. Jessup

11 Cal. 2d 273 · California Supreme Court · May 2, 1938

This proposition found expression in the case of City of Los Angeles v. … The decision in Brown v. Ferdon, 5 Cal. (2d) 226 [ 54 Pac. (2d) 712 ], precludes any such construction of the statute.

Union Transportation Co. v. Bassett

118 Cal. 604 · California Supreme Court · Oct 14, 1897

(White v. Kent, 11 Ohio St. 553 ; Wiley v. Alleghany County Commrs., 51 Md. 404 ; St. Louis v. Weber, 44 Mo. 550 ; Knoxville v. Bird, 12 Lea, 121 ; 47 Am. Rep. 326 .) … (Levy v. Scott, 115 Cal. 39 .)