Case law

In Re Lindley

29 Cal. 2d 709 · California Supreme Court · Feb 18, 1947

In answer to the question, “Why did you first believe you had on brown pants?”, the witness replied, “Because I like brown.” … But he erroneously identified a blue hat as brown, *718 a grey coat as black, and a brown hat and trousers as black.

Albonico v. Madera Irrigation District

53 Cal. 2d 735 · California Supreme Court · Feb 29, 1960

The superior court’s power of review in such cases is limited to determining whether there was substantial evidence before the board to support its decision. (Atchison etc. Ry. Co. v. … The board made the basic and ultimate finding of benefit. Such a finding of ultimate fact generally is sufficient (California Shipbuilding Corp. v. Industrial Acc.

McCarty v. Southern Pacific Co.

148 Cal. 211 · California Supreme Court · Nov 13, 1905

Co. v. Alameda W. Co., 36 Cal. 639 ; Curran v. Shattuck, 24 Cal. 432 ; Stanford v. Worn, 27 Cal. 174 ; Creighton v. Manson, 27 Cal. 628 ; Smith v. Davis, 30 Cal. 537 ; Trumpler v. Bemerly, 39 Cal. 491 ; Chase v. … (In re Grove St., 61 Cal. 452 ; Haynes v. Meeks, 20 Cal. 315 ; Meeks v. Hahn, 20 Cal. 626 ; Fitch v. Miller, 20 Cal. 382 ; Pryor v. Downey, 50 Cal. 398 , [ 19 Am. Rep. 656 ]; 15 Ency. of Law Pro. 810, 816; 12 Ency.

Gerry of California v. Superior Court

32 Cal. 2d 119 · California Supreme Court · Jun 16, 1948

Workers v. … National Labor Relations Board, 309 U.S. 350, at p. 365 [ 60 S.Ct. 569 , 84 L.Ed. 799 ]. Also, National Labor Relations Board v.

Schmidt v. Widber

105 Cal. 151 · California Supreme Court · Dec 21, 1894

In Laforge v. … (Ketchum v. Buffalo, 14 N. Y. 360 .)

Fare v. Scott K.

24 Cal. 3d 395 · California Supreme Court · May 25, 1979

Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943) [ 87 L.Ed. 1628 , 63 S.Ct. 1178 ]; equal protection against racial discrimination, Brown v. … Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) [ 98 L.Ed. 873 , 74 S.Ct. 686 ]; due process in civil contexts, Goss v.

People v. Harrison

57 Cal. 4th 1211 · California Supreme Court · Oct 31, 2013

And the Board‟s interpretation has been consistent over the past 26 years. Accordingly, we will not overturn the Board‟s definition of the section 2962 criteria “ „ “unless clearly erroneous.” ‟ ” (Sara M. v. … Name of Opinion People v.

Youst v. Longo

43 Cal. 3d 64 · California Supreme Court · Jan 2, 1987

In Buckaloo v. … In Gold v.

McCabe v. Carpenter

102 Cal. 469 · California Supreme Court · May 22, 1894

In Hughes v. … Manifestly, a much larger discretion is given by the act under consideration to the county superintendent than was given to the board created by that act. The case of Macklin v.

La Grange Hydraulic Gold Mining Co. v. Carter

142 Cal. 560 · California Supreme Court · Mar 18, 1904

It was held by this court in Buswell v. … In County of San Luis Obispo v.

People v. McDaniel

24 Cal. 3d 661 · California Supreme Court · Jul 19, 1979

(See People v. Daniels (1975) 14 Cal.3d 857 [ 122 Cal.Rptr. 872 , 537 P.2d 1232 ]; People v. Brown (1960) 55 Cal.2d 64 [ 9 Cal.Rptr. 816 , 357 P.2d 1072 ].) … Four cases bear examination regarding this contention: People v. Shephard (1959) 169 Cal.App.2d 283 [ 337 P.2d 214 ]; People v. Brown (1960) 55 Cal.2d 64 [ 9 Cal.Rptr. 816 , 357 P.2d 1072 ]; People v.

Kesler v. Pabst

43 Cal. 2d 254 · California Supreme Court · Jul 13, 1954

In Flores v. … (See Flores v. Brown, supra, 39 Cal.2d 622, 632 .)

City Street Improvement Co. v. Pearson

181 Cal. 640 · California Supreme Court · Dec 8, 1919

(Wharton on Contracts, sec. 533; McClure v. … (Nicholson v. Neary, 77 Wash. 294 , [ 137 Pac. 492 ]; Daniel v. Hughes, 196 Ala. 368 , [ 72 South. 23 ]; Ernst v. Hollis, 86 Ala. 513 , [ 6 South. 85 ]; Smith v. *652 Easton, 54 Md. 147 , [ 39 Am. Rep. 355 ]; Foster v.

Beveridge v. Livingstone

54 Cal. 54 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1879

, and on the Board, upon such report being received, a like obligation to advertise and relet the contract. … In opposition to this view, Taylor v. Palmer, 31 Cal. 246 , is cited by respondent’s counsel. That case, so far as this point is concerned, is commented upon and doubted in Turney v.

Hunt v. Broderick

104 Cal. 313 · California Supreme Court · Oct 2, 1894

In Weed v. Maynard, 52 Cal. 560 , Enkle v. Edgar, 63 Cal. 188 , San Francisco Gas Light Co. v. Dunn, 62 Cal. 580 , Welch v. … Falk v.

McVerry v. Boyd

89 Cal. 304 · California Supreme Court · May 28, 1891

(Raisch v. San Francisco, 80 Cal. 1 ; Beveridge v. Livingstone, 54 Cal. 54 .) 1. … (Hewes v. Reis, 40 Cal. 264 ; Himmelmann v. Hoadley, 44 Cal. 279 ; Dorland v. McGlynn, 47 Cal. 51 ; Boyle v. Hitchcock, 66 Cal. 129 ; Blair v. Lurning, 76 Cal. 135 ; 7 Am. St. Rep. 129 ; Jennings v.

Flying Tiger Line, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles

51 Cal. 2d 314 · California Supreme Court · Dec 16, 1958

Security-First National Bank v. … The duties of the board are fully set forth by this court in Universal Consolidated Oil Co. v.

Grigsby v. King

202 Cal. 299 · California Supreme Court · Oct 20, 1927

(People v. Lodi High School District, 124 Cal. 699 [ 57 Pac. 660 ].) The proviso prescribes the service which shall render operative the mandate of the section toward the trustees. … (In re Sugar Notch Borough, 192 Pa. 349 [ 43 Atl. 985 ]; Commonwealth v. Gilligan, 195 Pa. 504 [ 46 Atl. 124 ].)

Sargent v. Shumaker

193 Cal. 122 · California Supreme Court · Jan 30, 1924

(See, also, Building & Loan Assn. v. Sohn, 54 W. Va. 101 [ 46 S. E. 222 ]; Wells Fargo & Co. v. Board of Equalization, 56 Cal. 194, 198 ; Coffin v. Hussey, 12 Pick. (Mass.) 289; Commonwealth v. Jordan, 18 Pick. … Brown, post, p. -.) The rule is stated in Odell v.

Habenicht v. Lissak

78 Cal. 351 · California Supreme Court · Mar 8, 1889

In Clute v. … (Note to Ward v. Beebe, 15 Abb. Pr. 373 ; Stoors v. Kelsey, 2 Paige, 418 ; Hadden v. Spader, 20 Johns. 554 ; Londheim v. White, supra; United States v. Ancarola, supra.)