Case law

Mission Insurance v. Brown

63 Cal. 2d 508 · California Supreme Court · Nov 12, 1965

(See Hendricks v. Meritplan Ins. Co., 205 Cal.App.2d 133, 136-137 [ 22 Cal.Rptr. 682 ].)

Brown v. Superior Court

37 Cal. 3d 477 · California Supreme Court · Dec 6, 1984

Petitioners, Andrew Brown, Charles Jones and Sam George, were employed by real parties in interest, C.C. … (Select Base Materials v. Board of Equal. (1959) 51 Cal.2d 640, 645 [ 335 P.2d 672 ].) A construction rendering statutory language surplusage “ ‘is to be avoided.’ ” (Moyer v. Workmen’s Comp.

Brown v. Rice

52 Cal. 489 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1877

The only toll, as such, is the toll fixed by the Board, and the very fact that the defendant received more, shows it was no toll. The Board is limited in its rates of toll. (Sec. 514, Civil Code. … It is not pretended that the rates of toll as fixed by the Board of Supervisors were illegal in any respect.

Brown v. Overshiner

38 Cal. 2d 432 · California Supreme Court · Feb 20, 1952

(Board of Law Library Trustees of Orange County v. Board of Supervisors, 99 Cal. 571 [ 34 P. 244 ], county law libraries; Housing Authority of Los Angeles County v. … (See County of Los Angeles v. Kellogg, 146 Cal. 590 [ 80 P. 861 ]; Mercantile Trust Co. v. Miller, 166 Cal. 563 [ 137 P. 913 ]; Mitchell v.

Brown v. Superior Court

5 Cal. 3d 509 · California Supreme Court · Aug 19, 1971

Brown, Jr., a “citizen of the State of California.” … In Warden v.

Brown v. Hatch

43 Cal. 2d 785 · California Supreme Court · Jan 14, 1955

(Attorney General v. Superior Court, 41 Cal.2d 249 [ 259 P.2d 1 ].) … (Smith v. Westerfield, 88 Cal. 374, 379 [ 26 P. 206 ].) ” (Estate of Strong, 119 Cal. 663, 666-667 [ 51 P. 1078 ] ; see, also, McPike v. Superior Court, 220 Cal. 254, 258 [ 30 P.2d 17 ] ; Bales v.

Brown v. Pforr

1 Cal. Unrep. 632 · California Supreme Court · Aug 2, 1870

The statement of the plaintiff Brown that they had a customer who desired property in that locality does not even tend to establish the fact of an employment to *633 purchase this property for such customer.

Brown v. Witts

57 Cal. 304 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1881

Morenhout v. Brown

1 Cal. Unrep. 139 · California Supreme Court · Jun 6, 1864

Brown got no consideration for any such promise. … Brown made a subsequent compromise with Moss by which Moss took a part only of the lands in consideration of Brown’s releasing his claim to the rest. And he and Brown mutually released to each other.

Brown v. Jorres

148 Cal. 269 · California Supreme Court · Nov 29, 1905

There is no occasion for discussing here in detail the positions taken by appellant; for we see no substantial difference, as to the contentions which she here makes, between the case at bar and the case of Cargile v. … (See, also, the cases cited in Cargile v. Silsbee, ante, p. 259.) The judgment appealed from is affirmed. Henshaw, J., and Lorigan, J., concurred.

Pillsbury v. Brown

45 Cal. 46 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1872

Brown v. Brackett

45 Cal. 167 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1872

Palmer v. Brown

1 Cal. 42 · California Supreme Court · Mar 15, 1850

This case is not distinguishable from Gonzales v. Huntley & Forsyth. The judgment is, therefore, affirmed.

Harris v. Brown

1 Cal. 98 · California Supreme Court · Jun 15, 1850

It appears that the respondent made a contract of purchase of a certain city lot in San Francisco of one Stephen Harris, as the agent of Brown the appellant, which contract was not reduced to writing nor any memorandum thereof

Craig v. Brown

114 Cal. 480 · California Supreme Court · Oct 8, 1896

Fetterley v. Brown

204 Cal. 386 · California Supreme Court · Jun 19, 1928

It appears therefrom that the arrest of the plaintiff and his subsequent confinement were based on the representations of defendant Brown, a deputy parole officer, which representations were to the effect that plaintiff was

Brown v. Houser

1 Cal. Unrep. 578 · California Supreme Court · Apr 12, 1870

In order to show that it had, the respondents relied only upon the effect of a sheriff’s sale of the premises in controversy upon proceedings had in the cause of Starkey, Janion *579 & Co. v. … Bryant, and being tbe same wbicb we have lately had under consideration in Clark v. Sawyer. We held in that case that those proceedings were ineffectual to pass the legal title of Bryant to purchasers at that sale.

Chapin v. Brown

4 Cal. Unrep. 300 · California Supreme Court · Oct 14, 1893

On August 15, 1887, a written contract between the copartnership and two of its individual members, namely, Chapin and the defendant Brown, was executed, by which the copartnership agreed to sell to Chapin and Brown, and … As to the amount of lumber to be sawed, they agreed to be governed by the above-mentioned contract with Chapin and Brown.

People v. Brown

54 Cal. 243 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1880

Brown v. Hambleton

2 Cal. Unrep. 65 · California Supreme Court · Nov 3, 1879