Case law

Jackson v. Brown

82 Cal. 275 · California Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1889

This case comes within the rule laid down in Randall v. Hunter, 69 Cal. 80 , and must be decided the same way. Motion to dismiss appeal denied. The appeals of Samuels have als'o been submitted for decision. … (Holmes v. Rogers, 13 Cal. 191 ; Conniff v. Kahn, 54 Cal. 284 .) Judgment and order affirmed. Sharpstein, J., and Paterson, J'., concurred.

Brown v. Rice

51 Cal. 489 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1876

Plummer v. Brown

70 Cal. 544 · California Supreme Court · Aug 31, 1886

(Garland v. Wynn, 20 How. 6 ; Lytle v. Arkansas, 9 How. 328 ; Cunningham v. Ashley, 14 How. 382 ; Barnard v. Ashley, 18 How. 43 .) … (Payne v. Elliot, 54 Cal. 339 ; Kentfield v. Hayes, 57 Cal. 409 ; Chapman v. Quinn, 56 Cal. 266 ; Burrell v. Haw, 48 Cal. 225 ; Powers v. Leith, 53 Cal. 711 ; Hosmer v. Duggan, 56 Cal. 257 ; Aurrecoechea v.

Wiard v. Brown

59 Cal. 194 · California Supreme Court · Jul 15, 1881

, in which he and one Putnam were interested with Brown. … Kennedy, by a verified answer, alone answered the complaint in the action, for himself and Brown.

Weller v. Brown

160 Cal. 515 · California Supreme Court · Aug 7, 1911

Brown in the same block. … (Jones on Basements, sec. 104; Hogan v. Barry, 143 Mass. 538 , [ 10 N. E. 253 ] ; Shannon v. Timm, 22 Colo. 167 , [ 43 Pac. 1021 ].) In Coudert v. Sayre, 46 N. J.

Farrington v. Brown

65 Cal. 320 · California Supreme Court · Jun 4, 1885

The action is brought to enjoin the defendant Brown, a constable, from selling certain real property of plaintiff under execution, issued upon a judgment rendered and entered by a justice of the peace, in an action wherein

Brown v. Burbank

59 Cal. 535 · California Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1881

Ivory v. Brown

137 Cal. 603 · California Supreme Court · Nov 17, 1902

Brown is not disposed to make you any trouble, but will firmly and respectfully insist on her legal rights.” … The same was held in the subsequent cases of Mecham v. McKay, 37 Cal. 162 ; Brummagin v. Spencer, 29 Cal. 664 ; Johnson v. Chely, 43 Cal. 304 .

Brown v. Rouse

125 Cal. 645 · California Supreme Court · Sep 6, 1899

(Brown v. Rouse, 93 Cal. 237 .) At the second trial plaintiff amended his complaint, alleging a loan of $1,200 on November 18, 1887, and its nonpayment. … (Brown v. Rouse, 104 Cal. 672 .) De *648 fendant had previously given a mortgage on the land to one Davis, which had been overdue for three years and a half at the time of this alleged loan.

Wall v. Brown

162 Cal. 307 · California Supreme Court · Mar 8, 1912

Thomas Brown, the defendant, and Alice Brown, deceased, were husband and wife, and on May 26, 1876, said Thomas Brown acquired title to the lot in question as community property. … In support of this contention reliance is placed on the eases of Burkett v. Burkett, 78 Cal. 310 , [ 12 Am. St. Rep. 58 , 3 L. R. A. 781, 20 Pac. 715 ], and In re Lamb, 95 Cal. 397 , [ 30 Pac. 568 ].

Brown v. Merrill

107 Cal. 446 · California Supreme Court · Jun 7, 1895

This contention is based upon the authority of Bailey v.

Brown v. Delavau

63 Cal. 303 · California Supreme Court · Apr 6, 1883

The case as presented by the record is not distinguishable in *304 principle from Himes v.

Brown v. Green

65 Cal. 221 · California Supreme Court · May 8, 1884

People v. Brown

117 Cal. Rptr. 2d 738 · California Supreme Court · Dec 19, 2001

117 Cal.Rptr.2d 738 (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. James Nathaniel BROWN, Defendant and Appellant. No. BR 39863. Appellate Division, Superior Court, Los Angeles County. … Monique Brown. The prosecution called Monique as its next witness. She stated her true name was Latifa Monique Brown, and that her birth name was Latifa Monique Gunthrop.

Bennett v. Brown

206 Cal. 424 · California Supreme Court · Feb 4, 1929

Brown have entered a court of equity with unclean hands asking for aid. Arthur J. Brown is the son of Robert A. … Brown, the son of Robert A.

Brown v. Prewett

94 Cal. 502 · California Supreme Court · May 12, 1892

(Sprague v. Fawcett, 53 Cal. 406 .) We do not think the case discloses any abuse of discretion.

McCreery v. Brown

42 Cal. 457 · California Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1871

(Godey v. Godey, 39 Cal. 166, 167 .) Order affirmed.

Hartley v. Brown

46 Cal. 201 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1873

(Estrada v. Murphy, 19 Cal. 272; Clark v. Lockwood, 21 Cal. 222 ; Emeric v. Penniman, 26 Cal. 119; O’Connell v. Dougherty, 32 Cal. 462 ; Schmitt v. Giovanari, 43 Cal. 617 .) In Emeric v. … In O’Connell v.

Donovan v. Brown

11 Cal. 3d 571 · California Supreme Court · May 31, 1974

Petitioners urge that the United States Supreme Court in Lubin v. … Under the compulsion of Lubin v. Panish, supra, 415 U.S. 709 , and for the reasons to be further elucidated in Knoll v.

Brown v. Perry

39 Cal. 23 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1870

khe evidence that the defendants had possession of the premises before and at the time the plaintiff went there to build * his house, and that the premises were inclosed by a fence 'sufficient to mark the boundaries, and Brown … 6i ]aiy that the defendants had a right, three or four weeks, or eve six or twelve weeks afterward, to tear down and remove Brown’s house and fence, if they could do so without danger of committing a breach of the peace.”