Case law

Kiefer v. Laventhal

110 Cal. 667 · California Supreme Court · Jan 10, 1896

The facts pleaded are that Brown and Beaslin entered into an agreement (set forth in full in the complaint) by which Brown sold to Beaslin, for the sum of sixty dollars to him paid, certain personal property. … (Lower v. Winters, 7 Cow. 263 .)

Borel v. Rollins

30 Cal. 408 · California Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1866

In *414 Jackson v. … The judgment of the Supreme Court in this case was affirmed by the Court of Errors, in which Chancellor Kent delivered the opinion of the Court. ( 16 John. 323 -325; see, also, Baker v. Lorillard, 4 Coms. 257.)

In Re Martinez

1 Cal. 3d 641 · California Supreme Court · Jan 23, 1970

(See In re Brown, supra, 67 Cal.2d 339, 340 ; People v. … (See Brown v. Kearney (5th Cir. 1966) 355 F.2d 199, 200 .) Searches by parole officers pursuant to their duties, just as other administrative searches (see Camara v.

Styne v. Stevens

109 Cal. Rptr. 2d 14 · California Supreme Court · Jul 12, 2001

Brown (Cal.Lab.Com., June 2, 1994) TAC No. 66-92 [same]; but see Moreno v. … Brown (1970) 13 Cal.App.3d 513, 520-521 [ 89 Cal.Rptr. 651 ]; but see Sea World Corp. v. Superior Court (1973) 34 Cal.App.3d 494, 496-503 [ 110 Cal.Rptr. 232 ].)

Davanay v. Eggenhoff

43 Cal. 395 · California Supreme Court · Apr 15, 1872

(See, also, Brown v. Orr, 29 Cal. 120 .) The opinion of Mr. Justice Cope, in the case of Frisch v. … (Humphreys v. Call, 9 Cal. 62 ; Brown v. Scott, 25 Cal. 195 ; Vassault v. Austin, 82 Cal. 606 .)

Bruce v. Gregory

65 Cal. 2d 666 · California Supreme Court · Feb 6, 1967

Rittersbacher v. Board of Supervisors, 220 Cal. 535 [ 32 P.2d 135 ], is also distinguishable. … Rit tersbacher v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 220 Cal. 535, 540 .)

Kohn v. Sacramento Electric, Gas Ry. Co.

168 Cal. 1 · California Supreme Court · Jun 4, 1914

said Griffiths, but really for Brown’s benefit. … Respondents insist that the later case of Hibbs v. Brown, 190 N. Y. 172 , [ 82 N. E. 1108 ], virtually overruled McClelland v. Norfolk Southern R. R.

In re Lesansky

25 Cal. 4th 11 · California Supreme Court · Mar 1, 2001

(Morrison v. State Board of Education (1969) 1 Cal.3d 214, 227 [ 82 Cal.Rptr. 175 , 461 P.2d 375 ].) We do not agree, however, that a lawyer’s private acts may never demonstrate unfitness for the legal profession. … (Baker v. State Bar, supra, 49 Cal.3d 804, 815, fn. 3 .)

Cossack v. City of Los Angeles

11 Cal. 3d 726 · California Supreme Court · Jun 21, 1974

(See also Select Base Materials v. Board of Equal., 51 Cal.2d 640, 645 [ 335 P.2d 672 ].) Similarly, it was said in Alford v. … In Brown v.

Moore v. Panish

32 Cal. 3d 535 · California Supreme Court · Oct 18, 1982

Co. v. County of Orange (1955) 44 Cal.2d 549, 554 [ 283 P.2d 257 ]; Meyer v. Board of Trustees (1961) 195 Cal.App.2d 420, 432 [ 15 Cal.Rptr. 717 ].) … Azevedo v.

In Re Gandolfo

36 Cal. 3d 889 · California Supreme Court · Sep 17, 1984

We conclude, following Browne v. … (Browne v. Superior Court, supra, 16 Cal.2d at p. 598 .)

People v. Daniels

14 Cal. 3d 857 · California Supreme Court · Jul 30, 1975

Brown, supra, 55 Cal.2d 64 . … Brown, 55 Cal.2d 64 , 68 . . . People v. Monteverde, 236 Cal.App.2d 630 , 637 . . .) or furnishing a narcotic (see People v. Holquin, 229 Cal.App.2d 398, 402-403).” (Newman at p. 54 .)

Iskanian v. CLS Transportation

California Supreme Court · Jun 26, 2014

(Labor Board v. Jones & Laughlin (1937) 301 U.S. 1, 33-34.) … Licorice Co. v. Labor Board, supra, 309 U.S. at pp. 359-361).

People v. Martinez

20 Cal. 4th 225 · California Supreme Court · Apr 8, 1999

*229 Opinion BROWN, J. … Brown (1974) 11 Cal.3d 784 [ 114 Cal.Rptr. 426 , 523 P.2d 226 ]] (a movement of approximately 75 feet), [People v.

Ruelas v. County of Alameda

California Supreme Court · Apr 22, 2024

(See Pitts v. … (Santos v. Brown (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 398, 410.) We conclude that article XIV, section 5 of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 4019.3 can be harmonized. (See Penziner v.

Edgar v. Stevenson

70 Cal. 286 · California Supreme Court · Jul 28, 1886

That the plaintiffs are not entitled to an injunction restraining defendant from using such surplus is sustained by the ruling in the following cases: Brown v. Smith, 10 Cal. 510 ; Ortman v. … Thus in Brown v.

Bakke v. Regents of University of California

18 Cal. 3d 34 · California Supreme Court · Sep 16, 1976

As the Supreme Court has said numerous times since Brown v. Board of Education (1954) 347 U.S. 483 [ 98 L.Ed. 873 , 74 S.Ct. 686 , 38 A.L.R.2d 1180 ], there is no right to a segregated education. … The decision, with little discussion, applied the integration rationale of Brown v.

Stuart v. Bd. of Educ. of S.F.

161 Cal. 210 · California Supreme Court · Oct 18, 1911

This action was to enjoin the defendants, the board of education of the city and county of San Francisco and the superintendent of schools thereof, from enforcing a general resolution passed by the board requiring teachers … has been said, that the “benefit of pupils and resulting benefits to their parents and to the community at large, and not the benefit of teachers is the reason for the creation and support of the public schools” (Bates v.

In Re Barr

39 Cal. 2d 25 · California Supreme Court · May 13, 1952

(Foster v. … Vosburg, 137 Cal. 493 [ 70 P. 473 ] ; Browne v. Browne, 60 Cal.App.2d 637, 642 [ 141 P.2d 428 ]), the order of February 5th did not operate to supersede the order of January 10th.

People v. Hamilton

45 Cal. 4th 863 · California Supreme Court · Feb 23, 2009

(Uttecht v. Brown (2007) 551 U.S. 1, 9 [ 167 L.Ed.2d 1014 , 127 S.Ct. 2218, 2224 ].) … (People v. Watson, supra, 43 Cal.4th at p. 704; People v. Brown, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 402.)