Case law

California-Calaveras Mining Co. v. Walls

170 Cal. 285 · California Supreme Court · Jun 1, 1915

Co. v. Richter, 26 Misc. Rep. 26 , [ 55 N. Y. Supp. 486 ]; Walker v. Pike County Land Co., 139 Fed. 609 , [ 71 C. C. A. 593 ]. In South Joplin Land Go. v. … (See, also, Erlanger v. New Sombrero Phos. Co., L. R. 3 App. Cas. 1218; Colton Imp. Co. v. Richter, 26 Misc. Rep. 26 , [ 55 N. Y. Supp. 486 ]; Camden Land Co. v. Lewis, 101 Me. 78 , [ 63 Atl. 523 ] ; Pietsch v.

Kasky v. Nike, Inc.

27 Cal. 4th 939 · California Supreme Court · May 2, 2002

(a); see Brown v. Kelly Broadcasting Co. (1989) 48 Cal.3d 711, 746 [ 257 Cal.Rptr. 708 , 111 P.2d 406 ].) … (Board of Trustees, State Univ. of N.Y. v. Fox, supra, 492 U.S. at p. 474 [ 109 S.Ct. at p. 3031 ], italics omitted.)

Wilson v. Shea

194 Cal. 653 · California Supreme Court · Oct 22, 1924

It would seem clear, therefore, that the case of Mabb v. … (Hellman v. Schneider, 75 Ill. 422 ; Eustis Manf. Co. v. Saco Brick Co., 198 Mass. 212 [ 84 N. E. 449 ].)

Carsten v. Psychology Examining Committee

27 Cal. 3d 793 · California Supreme Court · Aug 7, 1980

Brown for Plaintiff and Appellant. George Deukmejian, Attorney General, and Alvin J. Korobkin, Deputy Attorney General, for Defendant and Respondent. OPINION MOSK, J. … Welfare v. County of L.A. (1945) 27 Cal.2d 98, 100-101 [ 162 P.2d 627 ]; Coldwell v. Board of Public Works (1921) 187 Cal. 510, 520 [ 202 P. 879 ]; McDonald v. Stockton Met. Transit Dist. (1973) 36 Cal.

Lawrence v. Ballou

37 Cal. 518 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1869

By the deed the Browns became, tenants hip common.QÍ the whole tract with their .grantor, Hatch,(1 This was, .expressly ruled in Schenk v. … To the same effect,.also, are the following cases: Lick v. O’Donnell, 3,Cal. 59; Gibbs v. Swift, 12 Cush. 393 ;, Sheafe v. Wait, 30 Vt. 735 ; Jackson v. Livingston, 7 Wend. 136 ; Corbin *521 v.

In Re Estate of Wright

177 Cal. 274 · California Supreme Court · Jan 22, 1918

Brown administrator with the will annexed of the estate of Jarena D. Wright, deceased. The facts of the case are these: Jarena D. … (Bates v. Howard, 105 Cal. 173 , [ 38 Pac. 715 ]. *277 The next contention of the appellant, that the evidence touching the competency of William B.

United Farm Workers Organizing Committee v. Superior Court

4 Cal. 3d 556 · California Supreme Court · Apr 15, 1971

Corp. v. Int. etc. of Teamsters, supra, p. 608.) In the leading case of National Labor Relations Board v. … (Brown v. Superior Court (1949) 34 Cal.2d 559 [ 212 P.2d 878 ].)

Miller v. Ballerino

135 Cal. 566 · California Supreme Court · Feb 24, 1902

The action is brought by the plaintiff, as assignee of Hatch, Miller & Brown, to recover for services rendered by them in the suit *568 of Ballerino v. Ballerino, in the superior court of Los Angeles County. … Bearing upon the conflict in testimony between Brooks and the appellant, an affidavit of the appellant on an application for an order for an allowance by the defendant in said action of Ballerino v.

Hardy v. Vial

48 Cal. 2d 577 · California Supreme Court · May 24, 1957

Brown, Attorney General, Lee B. Stanton, Deputy Attorney General, and George H. Chula, for Respondents. GIBSON, C.J. … (Shepherd v. State Personnel Board, ante, pp. 41, 46- 48 [ 307 P.2d 4 ].) [3b] The cases of Vargas v. Giacosa, 121 Cal.App.2d 521 [ 263 P.2d 840 ], Lorber v. Storrow, 22 Cal.App.2d 25 [ 70 P.2d 513 ], Hayashida v.

Ragsdale v. Nagle

106 Cal. 332 · California Supreme Court · Mar 11, 1895

The cause of action is based upon a certain contract entered into between plaintiff and one Brown upon the one side, and defendant Nagle upon the other. … (Brown v. Kling, 101 Cal. 295 ; City Carpet etc. Works v. Jones, 102 Cal. 506 .) 3.

California Savings & Commercial Bank v. Wheeler

216 Cal. 742 · California Supreme Court · Nov 30, 1932

(Langenberger v. Kroeger, [1874] 48 Cal. 147 [ 17 Am. Rep. 418 ]; Walsh v. Hunt, [1898] 120 Cal. 46 [39 L. R. A. 697, 52 Pac. 115 ] ; Dozier v. National Borax Co., [1917] 35 Cal. App. 612 [ 170 Pac. 638 ]; Hengehold v. … This court said in Commercial & Savings Bank of Stockton v.

Rixford v. Zeigler

150 Cal. 435 · California Supreme Court · Feb 6, 1907

In Wiseman v. … (See, also, Sunol v. Hepburn, 1 Cal. 254 ; Phelan v. San Francisco, 6 Cal. 531 .)

Mitchell v. Winnek

117 Cal. 520 · California Supreme Court · Jul 9, 1897

refused by the board. … (Thorpe v. Rutland etc. R. R. Co., 27 Vt. 142 ; 62 Am. Dec. 525 .)

People v. Glaze

27 Cal. 3d 841 · California Supreme Court · Aug 7, 1980

Brown, Weston & Sarno, Fleishman, Brown, Weston & Rohde, David M. Brown and G. Randall Garrou as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant. Burt Pines, City Attorney, George C. … As we said in Sunset Amusement Co. v. Board of Police Commissioners (1972) 7 Cal.3d 64, 72 [ 101 Cal.

People v. Allen

42 Cal. 3d 1222 · California Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1986

(k); People v. Easley, supra, 34 Cal.3d 858, 878 ; People v. Brown, supra, 40 Cal.3d 512, 541 .) In this regard, defendant put on a single character witness, his ex-girlfriend, Diane Harris. … As we observed in People v. Brown (1985) 40 Cal.3d 512 [ 220 Cal.

In Re Ewaniszyk

50 Cal. 3d 543 · California Supreme Court · Apr 5, 1990

When petitioner repeatedly failed to appear in court on Brown's behalf, bench warrants were issued for Brown's arrest. Brown fired petitioner and filed suit to recover the legal fees he had advanced. … (See DiGenova v. State Board of Education (1962) 57 Cal.2d 167, 177-178 [ 18 Cal. Rptr. 369 , 367 P.2d 865 ] [mandatory denial of teaching credentials to those convicted of specified sexual offenses not retroactive].)

Dickey v. Raisin Proration Zone No. 1

24 Cal. 2d 796 · California Supreme Court · Aug 31, 1944

Parker v. Brown, supra, at p. 367 .) … Imperial Irrigation Hist., 200 Cal. 318 [ 253 P. 726 ]; County of Los Angeles v. Graves, 210 Cal. 21 [ 290 P. 444 ]; Smith v. State Board of Control, 215 Cal. 421 [ 10 P.2d 736 ]; Southern Pacific R. R. Co. v.

DeGarmo v. Goldman

19 Cal. 2d 755 · California Supreme Court · Mar 5, 1942

In the first of these, Wickersham v. … (Bennett v. Brown, 206 Cal. 424 [ 274 Pac. 532 ]; Young v. Young Holdings Corp., Ltd., 27 Cal. App. (2d) 129 [ 80 Pac. (2d) 723]; Baar v. Smith, 97 Cal. App. 398 [ 275 Pac. 861 ]).

Busching v. Superior Court

12 Cal. 3d 44 · California Supreme Court · Jul 18, 1974

Brown & Company. … In Taylor v.

Hadian v. Schwartz

8 Cal. 4th 836 · California Supreme Court · Nov 23, 1994

As we conclude in Brown v. … In Brown v.