Case law

Brown v. Lawson

51 Cal. 615 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1877

(Curtis v. Herrick, 14 Cal. 117 .) Upon like reasoning, the sheriff’s return, that he had served a “ copy,” should be held equal to a return that he had served a “ certified copy.”

Silver v. Brown

63 Cal. 2d 270 · California Supreme Court · Sep 1, 1965

In the Assembly ease (Silver v. Brown) the respondents are the Governor, the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and all the members of the Assembly. … Co. v. State Board of Equal., ante, p. 222 [ 45 Cal.Rptr. 869 , 404 P.2d 477 ]; County of Los Angeles v. Jessup, 11 Cal.2d 273, 279 [ 78 P.2d 1131 ].)

People v. Brown

46 Cal. 102 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1873

This brings the case fully within the ruling in People v. Dodge, 28 Cal. 447 , and within the reasoning in People v. Francis, 38 Cal. 185 . Judgment and order reversed, and cause remanded for a new trial.

People v. Brown

34 Cal. 3d 64 · California Supreme Court · Jun 23, 1983

Code, § 69944; People v. Santo (1954) 43 Cal.2d 319, 331 [ 273 P.2d 249 ]; Malick v. Contra Costa County Flood Control etc. Dist. (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 50 [ 182 Cal.Rptr. 386 ].)

Brown v. Weldon

71 Cal. 393 · California Supreme Court · Dec 9, 1886

Harrison v. Brown

16 Cal. 287 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1860

Brown. Brown, in 1853, went off and left his wife to take care of herself. Before going, he made a deed of bargain and sale of this lot to his wife. … These acts require, that the husband shall unite in the conveyance; and this is an indispensable condition, as we more than intimated in the case of Morrison v. Wilson.

Barton v. Brown

68 Cal. 11 · California Supreme Court · Nov 19, 1885

Frace v. Brown

117 Cal. 324 · California Supreme Court · Jun 17, 1897

(Citing Allin v. Williams, 97 Cal. 407 , and McPherson v. Weston, 85 Cal. 90 .) The case here is clearly distinguishable from those cited. … (Reay v. Butler, 95 Cal. 206 . See, also, Dobinson v. McDonald, 92 Cal. 36 .) The trial judge had the witnesses before him, and possessed an advantage not accorded us here. I cannot say that his conclusions were wrong.

Freeman v. Brown

55 Cal. 465 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1880

People v. Brown

56 Cal. 405 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1880

(The People v. Kerrick, 52 Cal. 446 , and cases therein referred to.) Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered.

In Re Marriage of Brown

15 Cal. 3d 838 · California Supreme Court · Jan 16, 1976

Rptr. 633 In re the Marriage of GLORIA LOUCILLE and ROBERT WILLIAM BROWN. GLORIA LOUCILLE BROWN, Appellant, v. ROBERT WILLIAM BROWN, Respondent. Docket No. L.A. 30463. Supreme Court of California. In Bank. … Brown as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Respondent. OPINION TOBRINER, J. Since French v.

People v. Brown

California Supreme Court · Mar 2, 2023

BROWN Opinion of the Court by Groban, J. death’ ”]; People v. … v.

People v. Brown

California Supreme Court · Mar 27, 2023

(People v. Brown (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 15, 31 (Brown).) … (See People v. Brown (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 15, 31–32 (Brown); cf. maj. opn., ante, at p. 27.)

People v. Brown

33 Cal. 4th 382 · California Supreme Court · Jul 12, 2004

Opinion BROWN, J. … (People v. Brown (1988) 46 Cal.3d 432 [ 250 Cal.Rptr. 604 , 758 P.2d 1135 ] (Brown I).) On petition for writ of habeas corpus, however, we found Brady error (Brady v.

Brown v. Mann

68 Cal. 517 · California Supreme Court · Feb 8, 1886

Brown v. Vidal

1 Cal. Unrep. 15 · California Supreme Court · Jan 28, 1856

Brown v. Casey

80 Cal. 504 · California Supreme Court · Sep 12, 1889

Brown v. Superior Court

34 Cal. 2d 559 · California Supreme Court · Dec 28, 1949

Boss Simpson, to determine his rights under a written contract to make mutual wills, entered into by Abigail and her deceased former husband, George Brown. … There is no merit in respondent’s contention that the probate decree in the estate of George Brown distributing the property to Abigail free from any restrictions is conclusive of petitioner’s rights.

Alpers v. Brown

60 Cal. 447 · California Supreme Court · May 26, 1882

It could hardly have been contemplated by the Board of Supervisors that the owners of such animals as should die should exercise the privilege granted of removing them within the time stated with their own hands.

Brown v. Superior Court

44 Cal. 3d 1049 · California Supreme Court · Mar 31, 1988

And in Collins v. … (Woodill v. Parke Davis & Co., supra, 402 N.E.2d 194, 199 ; accord, Leibowitz v.