Case law

Knight v. BD. ETC. EMPLOYEES'RETIREMENT

32 Cal. 2d 400 · California Supreme Court · Aug 13, 1948

(Gibson v. City of San Diego, 25 Cal.2d 930 [ 156 P.2d 737 ]; McKeag v. Board of Pension Commrs., 21 Cal.2d 386 [ 132 P.2d 198 ]; Dillard v. City of Los Angeles, 20 Cal.2d 599 [ 127 P.2d 917 ]; Casserly v. … (O'Dea v. Cook, 176 Cal. *403 659 [ 169 P. 366 ]; Casserly v. City of Oakland, 215 Cal. 600 [ 12 P.2d 425 ]; Dillard v. City of Los Angeles, 20 Cal.2d 599 [ 127 P.2d 917 ].) As was said in Hurley v.

People v. Garcia

87 Cal. Rptr. 2d 114 · California Supreme Court · Jul 29, 1999

(Wells v. Marina City Properties, Inc., supra, 29 Cal.3d at p. 788 ; Select Base Materials v. Board of Equal. (1959) 51 Cal.2d 640, 645 [ 335 P.2d 672 ].) … (See, e.g., People v.

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.

de McKinlay v. Tuttle

42 Cal. 570 · California Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1872

The plaintiff invokes the doctrine announced in Hahn v.

Kelly v. Methodist Hospital of Southern Cal.

95 Cal. Rptr. 2d 514 · California Supreme Court · May 11, 2000

Relying on our decision in Jennings v. … J., Mosk, J., Kennard, J., Baxter, J., Chin, J., and Brown, J., concurred.

Taylor v. Hawkinson

47 Cal. 2d 893 · California Supreme Court · Feb 8, 1957

Schneider, 196 Cal. 380 [ 238 P. 81 ]; Nielsen v. Emerson, 119 Cal. App. 214 [ 6 P.2d 281 ]; Guaranty L. Corp. v. Board of Supervisors, 22 Cal. App.2d 684 [ 71 P.2d 931 ]; Patterson v. … App. 17, 23 [ 23 P.2d 532 ]; Kittridge v. Stevens, 16 Cal. 381 ; Brown v. Brown, 170 Cal. 1 [ 147 P. 1168 ]; Brown v. Brown, 170 Cal. 8 [ 147 P. 1171 ]; Wattson v.

Silver v. Reagan

67 Cal. 2d 452 · California Supreme Court · Oct 6, 1967

(Silver v. Brown (1965) 63 Cal.2d 270, 280 [ 46 Cal.Rptr. 308 , 405 P.2d 132 ].) It should be noted that those requirements are more rigorous than we assumed in Silver v. Brown. … (See Silver v. Brown, supra, 63 Cal.2d 270, 283-290 .)

Fields v. Eu

18 Cal. 3d 322 · California Supreme Court · Nov 23, 1976

(Pollack v. … Mabry (1940) 176 Tenn. 343 [ 141 S.W.2d 481, 484 ]; State v. Wright (1937) 211 Ind. 41 [ 5 N.E.2d 504, 505 ]; State v. Board of Election Com’rs (1925) 196 Ind. 472 [ 149 N.E. 69, 72 ]; Schaffner v.

Armstrong v. Bd. of Educ. of the City of Vallejo

173 Cal. 217 · California Supreme Court · Jul 27, 1916

In Shaw v. … Lane v. Case, 64 Hun, 636 , 19 N. Y.

Wells Fargo Bank & Union Trust Co. v. Superior Court

32 Cal. 2d 1 · California Supreme Court · May 25, 1948

(Arrington v. Brown, 235 Ala. 196 [ 178 So. 218, 220 ]; Estate of Dimmitt, 141 Neb. 413, 425 [ 3 N.W.2d 752 , 144 A.L.R. 704 , 717], 41 Mich.L.Rev. 751, 752.) … In Swetland v.

Skinner v. Coy

13 Cal. 2d 407 · California Supreme Court · May 5, 1939

Ed. 568 ] ; Carstens v. DeSellem, 82 Wash. 643 [ 144 Pac. 934 ] ; State v. Main, 69 Conn. 123 [ 37 Atl. 80 , 61 Am. St. Rep. 30 , 36 L. R. A. 623] ; Shafford v. Brown, 49 Wash. 307 [ 95 Pac. 270 ] ; Colville v. … A. 1915F, 894]; Louisiana State Board of Agriculture v. Tanzmann, 140 La. 756 [ 73 So. 854 , Ann. Cas. 1917E, 217, L. R. A. 1917C, 894] ; Kelleher v. French, (Va.) 22 Fed. (2d) 341; Wallace v. Dohner, 89 Ind.

Anderson v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp.

53 Cal. 3d 987 · California Supreme Court · May 30, 1991

(Barker, supra, 20 Cal.3d at p. 432; see also Brown v. Superior Court, supra, 44 Cal. 3d 1049, 1066 ; Vermeulen v. Superior Court, supra, 204 Cal.App.3d 1192, 1206 ; Oakes v. E. I. … We recently reviewed and further refined the principles of strict liability in Brown v.

Phipps v. Harlan

53 Cal. 87 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1878

By the-Court: Judgment and order denying a new trial affirmed as to the defendants Harlan, Maulsbury, Brown, Fowler, and Swope. Remittitur forthwith.

County of Los Angeles v. Legg

5 Cal. 2d 349 · California Supreme Court · Feb 19, 1936

In this proceeding the petitioner asks for a peremptory writ of mandate, to compel respondent, as Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles, to sign certain tax anticipation notes proposed to be issued … Points IV and V.

Villa De Las Palmas Homeowners Ass'n v. Terifaj

14 Cal. Rptr. 3d 67 · California Supreme Court · Jun 14, 2004

In Nahrstedt v. … Basso imposed a reasonableness analysis to rules promulgated by a board of directors or decisions by the board denying a certain use when the decision falls within the board’s authority, explaining the reason for the more

Conroy v. Regents of University of California

45 Cal. 4th 1244 · California Supreme Court · Apr 6, 2009

(Oakland Raiders v. National Football League (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 621, 648 [ 32 Cal.Rptr.3d 266 ]; see generally Ann M. v. … In other words, the declaration now purports to say only that plaintiff relied on Brown’s statements. (See Yanowitz v. L’Oreal USA, Inc., supra, 36 Cal.4th at p. 1037 .)

Cockerell v. Title Insurance & Trust Co.

42 Cal. 2d 284 · California Supreme Court · Feb 24, 1954

In Brown v. … As was said in Brown v.

EAST BAY ASIAN LOCAL DEVEOPMENT v. State

102 Cal. Rptr. 2d 280 · California Supreme Court · Dec 21, 2000

First, the statute must.have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion, Board of Education v. … V Disposition. The judgment of the Court of Appeal is affirmed. Kennard, J., Chin, J., and Brown, J., concurred.

Bd. of Educ. of San Francisco v. Fowler

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

We have held in Heydenfeldt v. Hitchcock, following the early decision in Smith v. Morse, that this deed is void as a transfer of *22 the property of the city. (See 15 Cal. 514 .) … It is urged that the Board of Education is not a body or legal person capable of suing ; but this point is answered by the act. 2. It is ui’ged that the suit of The City of San Francisco v. E.

Vasquez v. State

45 Cal. 4th 243 · California Supreme Court · Nov 20, 2008

(See Graham [, supra, ] 34 Cal.4th 553, 557 ; Grimsley v. Board of Supervisors (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 960, 966-967 [ 213 Cal.Rptr. 108 ].)" II. … (See Grimsley v. Board of Supervisors [, supra, ] 169 Cal.App.3d 960, 966-967 ....)