Case law

Sea-Land Service, Inc. v. County of Alameda

12 Cal. 3d 772 · California Supreme Court · Nov 8, 1974

(See Braniff Airways v. Nebraska Board (1954) supra, 347 U.S. at p. 593, fn. 4 [ 98 L.Ed. at p. 973 ].) … I, § 10, cl. 2; Brown v. Marvland (1827) 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 419 [ 6 L.Ed. 678 ].) This contention is likewise without merit.

Gorman v. Gorman

134 Cal. 378 · California Supreme Court · Oct 12, 1901

(Eslinger v. Eslinger, 47 Cal. 62 ; Brown v. Brown,. 60 Cal. 579 .) … We find the cases of Eslinger v. Eslinger, 47 Cal. 62 , and Brown v.

In Re Atiles

33 Cal. 3d 805 · California Supreme Court · May 16, 1983

In People v. … In People v.

Long v. Neville

29 Cal. 131 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1865

(Tillinghast’s Adams, 327; Chapman v. Armistead, 4 Mumford, 390.) … By way of illustration take a case which is put by the Court in Jones v. Chiles, 2 Dana, 321 .

People v. Ansell

108 Cal. Rptr. 2d 145 · California Supreme Court · Jun 14, 2001

V, § 8, subd. (a); see Brown, The Quality of Mercy (1993) 40 UCLA L.Rev. 327, 328-332.) … Board of Architectural Examiners, supra, 17 Cal.4th 763, 784-787 , and cases cited; Rubio v. Superior Court, supra, 24 Cal.3d 93, 101 ; People v. King, supra, 22 Cal.3d 12, 21 .)

Arnaudo Brothers v. Agric. Labor Relations Bd.

230 Cal. Rptr. 3d 134 · California Supreme Court · Mar 14, 2018

The above-entitled manner is transferred to the Fifth Appellate District with directions to vacate its decision and to reconsider the cause in light of Tri-Fanucchi Farms v. … Agricultural Labor Relations Board (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1161 , 225 Cal.Rptr.3d 545 , 405 P.3d 1110 . ( Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.528(d).)

Katenkamp v. Union Realty Co.

6 Cal. 2d 765 · California Supreme Court · Jul 13, 1936

(Frasher v. Rader, 124 Cal. 132 [ 56 Pac. 797 ] ; Brown v. Board of Supervisors, 124 Cal. 274 [ 57 Pac. 82 ].) ” This holding is sound (Standard Oil Co. v. … (Standard Oil Co. v. State Board of Equalization, supra.)

T-Mobile West LLC v. City and County of S.F.

245 Cal. Rptr. 3d 412 · California Supreme Court · Apr 4, 2019

The board opined that the City needed to regulate the placement of this equipment to prevent installation in ways or locations “that will diminish the City’s beauty.” … (Pacific Legal Foundation v. Brown (1981) 29 Cal.3d 168, 180; see also Arcadia Unified School Dist. v. State Dept. of Education (1992) 2 Cal.4th 251, 267.)

Dean v. Shingle

198 Cal. 652 · California Supreme Court · May 28, 1926

(Brown v. Major, 164 Fed. 673, 677 [ 90 C. C. A. 489 ].) … This con *663 struction of the constitution has been followed by the federal courts (Brown v. Major, supra), and by the district courts of appeal of this state (Hercules Oil Co. v. Hocknell, 5 Cal.

Allied Properties v. Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control

53 Cal. 2d 141 · California Supreme Court · Nov 30, 1959

In the case of State Board of Dry Cleaners v. … (State Board of Dry Cleaners v. Thrift-D-Lux Cleaners, supra, at p. 448 ).

Gonzales v. Nork

20 Cal. 3d 500 · California Supreme Court · Jan 17, 1978

Jockey Club v. Cal. etc. Racing Bd. (1950) 36 Cal.2d 167, 176 [ 223 P.2d 1 ]; Desper v. J. T. Jenkins Co. (1961) 197 Cal.App.2d 277, 288 [17 Cal.Rptr. 307]; Claremont Press Pub. Co. v. … In Taylor v. Union Pacific R.R.

Hornblower v. Masonic Cemetery Assn.

191 Cal. 83 · California Supreme Court · Apr 27, 1923

(See, for example, Hertle v. Riddell, 127 Ky. 623 [ 128 Am. St. Rep. 364 , 15 L. R. A. (N. S.) 796, 106 S. W. 282 ]; Brown v. Hill, 284 Ill. 286 [ 119 N. E. 977 ]; Anderson v. Acheson, 132 Iowa, 744 [9 L. R. A. (N. … In the case of Chew v.

People v. Wagner

13 Cal. 3d 612 · California Supreme Court · Feb 27, 1975

(See Brown v. United States, 356 U.S. 148, 155-156 [ 2 L.Ed.2d 589, 596-598 , 78 S.Ct. 622 , 72 A.L.R.2d 818 ]; People v. Williams, 30 Cal.App.3d 502, 510 [ 106 Cal.Rptr. 324 ].) … On redirect examination, Brown admitted that prior to trial he initiated a conversation with the prosecutor and was informed that although no promises would be made, Brown’s testimony for the prosecution would be helpful

Albers v. County of Los Angeles

62 Cal. 2d 250 · California Supreme Court · Jan 22, 1965

(Cit izens Utilities Co. v. Superior Court (1963) 59 Cal.2d 805, 817 [ 31 Cal.Rptr. 316 , 382 P.2d 356 ]; Bacich v. Board of Control (1943) 23 Cal.2d 343, 353 [ 144 P.2d 818 ] ; Rose v. … In Brown v.

Hallinan v. Committee of Bar Examiners

65 Cal. 2d 447 · California Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1966

(Black v. State Bar, supra, 57 Cal.2d 219, 222 ; Brawner v. State Bar, 48 Cal.2d 814, 818 [ 313 P.2d 1 ] ; Browne v. State Bar, 45 Cal.2d 165, 168, 169 [ 287 P.2d 745 ] ; Hildebrand v. … (Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, supra, at pp. 241-242.)

Coker v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

62 Cal. 4th 667 · California Supreme Court · Jan 21, 2016

Our starting point is Brown v. Jensen (1953) 41 Cal.2d 193 (Brown). The borrowers in that case used two purchase money notes to buy real property. … The borrowers argued that the suit was barred by section 580b as construed in Brown, to which Spangler responded that Roseleaf had ―impliedly overruled Brown v.

Stevens v. Storke

191 Cal. 329 · California Supreme Court · Jun 28, 1923

(Van Vactor v. Walkup, 46 Cal. 124 ; Brewer v. Chase, 121 Mich. 526 [ 80 Am. St. Rep. 527 , 46 L. R. A. 397, 80 N. W. 575 ]; Graves v. Waller, 19 Conn. 90 .) Thus, in Bettner v. … Conover, who was a member of the board of supervisors when the roads were put down.

People v. Ramirez

34 Cal. 3d 541 · California Supreme Court · Sep 6, 1983

In Whiteley v. … In our case, before Officer Brown radioed for his warrant check he had no reason to suspect defendant was wanted for criminal activity. In People v.

In re Estate of Orr

29 Cal. 101 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1865

Brown, is not erroneous. … (Fallon v. Butler, 21 Cal. 24 ; Willis v. Farley, 24 Cal. 490 .) Order affirmed.

Wines v. Garrison

190 Cal. 650 · California Supreme Court · Mar 21, 1923

In Welsh v. … (Taylor v. Brown, 4 Cal. 188 [ 60 Am. Dec. 604 ]; Jobson v. Fennell, 35 Cal. 711 .) These deputies, however, cannot be paid from the public treasury unless some express provision is made for such payment.