Case law

Davis v. Hearst

160 Cal. 143 · California Supreme Court · Jun 6, 1911

Rep. 123 , 71 Pac. 165 , 75 Pac. 842 ]; Railway Co. v. Prentice, 147 U. S. 101 , [13 Sup. Ct. 261, 37 L. Ed. 97 ]; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Brown, 58 Tex. 170 , [ 44 Am. Rep. 610 ]. … W. 28 ]; Wabash Printing & Publishing Co. v. Crumrine, 123 Ind. 89 , [ 21 N. E. 904 ]; Browning v. Powers, (Mo.), 38 S. W. 943 .)

Bettandorff v. Chronister

2 Cal. 2d 425 · California Supreme Court · Feb 14, 1935

Chronister, aggregating approximately $400, were assigned by him to the board of trade for the benefit of his creditors. … There is no merit in the contention that the execution of the undertaking by Brown and Hill to prevent the attachment of Chronister’s property (sec. 540, Code Civ.

Henkel Corp. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.

129 Cal. Rptr. 2d 828 · California Supreme Court · Feb 5, 2003

This transaction was a contract: the resolution of Amchem No. 1 ’s board of directors was an offer (see Dow v. River Farms Co. (1952) 110 Cal.App.2d 403 [ 243 P.2d 95 ]; Hoge v. … J., Baxter, J., Werdegar, J., Brown, J., and Ortega, J., * concurred.

Westbrook v. Mihaly

2 Cal. 3d 765 · California Supreme Court · Jun 30, 1970

(See, e.g., Brown v. Board of Education (1954) 347 U.S. 483, 492 [ 98 L.Ed. 873, 879 , 74 S.Ct. 686 , 38 A.L.R.2d 1180 ].) … Board of Supervisors (1965) 63 Cal.2d 343 [ 46 Cal.Rptr. 617 , 405 P.2d 857 ] and Silver v. Brown (1965) 63 Cal.2d 270 [ 46 Cal.Rptr. 308 , 405 P.2d 132 ]. See Williams v.

Elston v. City of Turlock

38 Cal. 3d 227 · California Supreme Court · Mar 4, 1985

. *234 739, 743-744 [ 297 P. 25 ]; Flores v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 13 Cal.App.3d at p. 483.) … (Ibid.; see, e.g., Brill v. Fox, supra, 211 Cal. at p. 744 ; Waite v. Southern Pacific Co., supra, 192 Cal. at p. 471 ; cf. Flores v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 13 Cal.App.3d at p. 485.)

People v. Feggans

67 Cal. 2d 444 · California Supreme Court · Oct 3, 1967

Relying on Eskridge v. Washington Prison Board, 357 U.S. 214 [ 2 L.Ed.2d 1269 , 78 S.Ct. 1061 ], and Lame v. … Brown, 372 U.S. 477 [ 9 L.Ed.2d 892 , 83 S.Ct. 768 ], the court concluded that the no-merit letter procedure unconstitutionally conditioned an indigent’s right of appeal (see Douglas v.

People v. Hogan

71 Cal. 2d 888 · California Supreme Court · Aug 20, 1969

I Defendant testified that after the dice game Brown said hH was going to kill him, that Brown went to his car and defend» ant to his, that Brown came from behind his car with hiH hand in his pocket, that, thinking Brown … (People v. Gardner, 252 Cal.App.2d 320, 324-325 [ 60 Cal.Rptr. 321 ]; People v. Griffin, 250 *891 Cal.App.2d 545, 550-551 [ 58 Cal.Rptr. 707 ]; People v.

Barber v. Blue

65 Cal. 2d 185 · California Supreme Court · Sep 1, 1966

(Holbrook v. Board of Directors etc. Irr. Dist. (1937) 8 Cal.2d 158, 161 [ 64 P.2d 430 ].) … (Brown v. Hite (1966) supra, 64 Cal.2d 120, 126 .) Other cases have interpreted the word “term” in still other ways (see, e.g., Aggeler v. Dominguez (1933) 217 Cal. 429 [ 19 P.2d 241 ]; People v.

Wilmarth v. Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co.

168 Cal. 536 · California Supreme Court · Oct 5, 1914

Co. v. Brown, 123 III. 186, [ 5 Am. St. Rep. 510 , 14 N. E. 197 ] ; McGee v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co, 92 Mo. 208 , [ 1 Am. St. Rep. 706 , 4 S. W. 739 ]; Nashville etc. R. R. Co. v. Erwin (Tenn.), 3 Am. & Eng. R. R. … Such is the doctrine of Kappes v. Brown Shoe Co., 116 Mo. App. 154 , [ 90 S. W. 1158 ], cited by appellant. That was a case in which the elevator had been used for freight and for carrying employees of the defendant.

Pitts v. County of Kern

17 Cal. 4th 340 · California Supreme Court · Jan 29, 1998

Opinion BROWN, J. … (Bd. of County Com’rs of Bryan County, Okl. v. Brown (1997) 520 U.S. 397 , _ [ 117 S.Ct. 1382, 1388 , 137 L.Ed.2d 626 ], original italics.)

Allan v. City & County of San Francisco

7 Cal. 2d 642 · California Supreme Court · Oct 30, 1936

In the case of Merchant v. Grant, 26 Cal. … This court in its decision in Brown v.

People v. Brendlin

45 Cal. 4th 262 · California Supreme Court · Nov 24, 2008

(Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. at p. 592 ; see also Brown v. Illinois (1975) 422 U.S. 590, 603 [ 45 L.Ed.2d 416 , 95 S.Ct. 2254 ] (Brown).) … (Brown, supra, 422 U.S. at p. 605 ; see also U.S. v. Simpson, supra, 439 F.3d at p. 496 ; McBath v.

People v. Richardson

43 Cal. 4th 959 · California Supreme Court · May 22, 2008

(People v. Brown (1988) 46 Cal.3d 432, 463 [ 250 Cal.Rptr. 604 , 758 P.2d 1135 ].) *1029 2. “Double Counting” of Special Circumstances and Consideration of Sodomy Special Circumstance Relying on language in People v. … (People v. Brown, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 402; People v. Ghent, supra, 43 Cal.3d at p. 776.) c.

Welton v. City of Los Angeles

18 Cal. 3d 497 · California Supreme Court · Dec 8, 1976

Moreover, during the pendency of this case, the United States Supreme Court decided Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. … (Mulkey v. Reitman (1966) 64 Cal.2d 529, 543 [ 50 Cal.Rptr. 881 , 413 P.2d 825 ]; Franklin Life Ins. Co. v. State Board of Equalization (1965) 63 Cal.2d 222, 227 [ 45 Cal.Rptr. 869 , 404 P.2d 477 ].)

Weber v. Marshall

19 Cal. 447 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1861

Covillaud , referring to this doctrine affirmed in Brown v. … (Clinan v, Cooke, 1 Sch. & Lef. 41; Parkhurst v. Van Cortlandt, 1 Johns. Ch. 284 ; Lowry v. Tew, 3 Barb. 413 ; Story’s Eq. 761.)

Shade v. Sisson Mill & Lumber Co.

115 Cal. 357 · California Supreme Court · Dec 17, 1896

The plaintiff testified, in substance, that he was offered one hundred and fifty dollars per month with board, or one hundred and seventy dollars per month without board, to commence from the month of January, 1891—the time … Brown)..... 22 00 67 00 $602 00.”

Jones v. H. F. Ahmanson & Co.

1 Cal. 3d 93 · California Supreme Court · Nov 7, 1969

(Brown v. Halbert, 271 Cal.App.2d 252 [ 76 Cal.Rptr. 781 ]; Burt v. Irvine Co., 237 Cal.App.2d 828 [ 47 Cal.Rptr. 392 ]; Efron v. Kalmanovitz, 226 Cal.App.2d 546 [ 38 Cal.Rptr. 148 ]; Remillard Brick Co. v. … Healy, 244 Pa. 427 [ 91 A. 428 ]; Brown v.

People ex rel. State Bd. of Harbor Commr's v. La Rue

95 Cal. 75 · California Supreme Court · Jun 18, 1892

Haynie, as wharfinger, appointed by the board of state harbor commissioners, to recover certain moneys lost to the said board by the delinquency of said Haynie. … That the board of harbor commissioners have prosecuted the action without authority of law, because not done on the relation of the attorney-general. 2.

People ex rel. Morgan v. Hayne

7 L.R.A. 348 · California Supreme Court · Feb 6, 1890

(Burrell v. Haw, 48 Cal. 223 ; Meredith v. Board of Supervisors, 50 Cal. 433; Williams v. Williams , 73 Cal. 101 .) … (Sneath v. Griffin, 48 Cal. 438 ; Brown v. Burbank, 64 Cal. 101 .) Can it be said that this is a violation of the constitution? I certainly think not.

Keidatz v. Albany

39 Cal. 2d 826 · California Supreme Court · Oct 31, 1952

Board of Medical Examiners, 93 Cal.App. 65, 71 [ 268 P. 1073 ] ; Takekawa v. Hole, 17 Cal.App. 653, 656 [ 121 P. 296 ] ; see See v. Joughin, 18 Cal.2d 603, 606 [ 116 P.2d 777 ] ; Campenella v. … (Herdan v. Hanson, 182 Cal. 538, 542 [ 189 P. 440 ] ; Estate of Sharon, 179 Cal. 447, 461 [ 177 P. 283 ] ; City & County of San Francisco v. Brown, 153 Cal. 644, 648 [ 96 P. 281 ].)