Case law

People v. Langston

17 Cal. Rptr. 3d 596 · California Supreme Court · Aug 16, 2004

(People v. Carr (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d 774, 780-781 [ 251 Cal.Rptr. 458 ] (Carr); People v. White (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 862, 867-871 [ 249 Cal.Rptr. 165 ] (White); see People v. … J., Baxter, J., Werdegar, J., Brown, J., and Moreno, J., concurring.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Rolph

184 Cal. 557 · California Supreme Court · Dec 24, 1920

(Fox v. Workman, 155 Cal. 201 , [ 100 Pac. 246 ]; Ferguson v. Board of Education, 7 Cal. App. 568 , [ 95 Pac. 165 ].) … Co. v. Deasy, supra.

Columbia Savings Bank v. County of Los Angeles

137 Cal. 467 · California Supreme Court · Oct 11, 1902

Society v. … (Citing Mayrhofer v. Board of Education, 89 Cal. 110 , 1 and Whitaker v. County of Tuolumne, 96 Cal. 100 .) Mayrhofer v. Board of Education, 89 Cal. 110 ,1 was correctly decided, but does not decide this ease.

Stratton v. Green

45 Cal. 149 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1872

“V. That after such salary had been so approved, the Secretary of the Commissioners duly certified the approval of the same to the respondent as Controller. “VI. … Our attention has been drawn to the case of McCauley v. Brooks, 16 Cal. 11 , but we prefer the rule announced here in the earlier case of Redding v.

Jardine v. City of Pasadena

199 Cal. 64 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1926

(Hopping v. Council of the City of Richmond, 170 Cal. 605 [ 150 Pac. 977 ]; Nickerson v. San Bernardino, 179 Cal. 518 [ 177 Pac. 465 ]; Hill v. Board of Supervisors, 176 Cal. 84 [ 167 Pac. 514 ].) … (Board of Health v. Inhabitants of City of Trenton (N. J. Ch.), 63 Atl. 897 .) In San Diego Tuberculosis Assn. v. East San Diego, 186 Cal. 252 [17 A. L.

Parrott v. Floyd

54 Cal. 534 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1880

(Rogers v. Tenant, 45 Cal. 186 ; McCreery v. Brown, 42 Id. 457; Godey v. Godey, 39 Id. 166.)

Ex parte Williams

121 Cal. 328 · California Supreme Court · Jun 30, 1898

Any person who obtains any food or accommodation at an inn or boarding-house without paying therefor, with intent to defraud the proprietor or manager thereof, or who obtains credit at an inn or boarding-house by the use … (People v. McKenna, 81 Cal. 158 .)

Matter of Application of Keppelmann

166 Cal. 770 · California Supreme Court · Jan 8, 1914

It had, therefore, on that date, a vested right to occupy such part of the street for the purposes specified in said section 19, and subject to the limitations therein contained (People v. … (See Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Hopkins, 160 Cal. 106 , [ 116 Pac. 557 ] ; In re Russell, 163 Cal. 668 , [Ann. Cas. 1914A, 152, 126 Pac. 875 ].) But the constitutional grant was not absolute.

County of San Diego v. State

15 Cal. 4th 68 · California Supreme Court · Mar 3, 1997

(Board of Supervisors v. Superior Court (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 552, 557 [ 254 Cal.Rptr. 905 ].) … Summary Dig., p. 130; see also Gardner v. County of Los Angeles, supra, 34 Cal.App.4th at p. 216 ; *106 Board of Supervisors v.

Savings & Loan Society v. Austin

46 Cal. 415 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1873

In the People v. … It is very true, as was said in People v. Whartenby , and in Lick v.

Ex parte Frazer

54 Cal. 94 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1880

(People v. Nally, 49 Cal. 482 ; Robinson v. Bidwell, 22 Id. 379; Com. v. Hutchings, 5 Gray, 485 .) … In such cases, the portions which are constitutional are not affected by the portions which are invalid. ( Warren v. Mayor of Charlestown, 2 Gray, 98 ; French v. Teschemaker, 24 Cal. 548 .)

Park & Tilford Import Corp. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters

27 Cal. 2d 599 · California Supreme Court · Jan 31, 1946

Board, 323 U.S. 248 [ 65 S.Ct. 238 , 89 L.Ed. 216 ]; National Labor R. Board v. Dahlstrom etc. Co., 112 F.2d 756, 758 ; National Labor R. Board v. Karp etc. Co., 134 F.2d 954 .) … Board v. John Engelhorn & Sons, 134 F.2d 553, 557 ; National Labor R. Board v. Hudson Motor Car Co., 128 F.2d 528 ; McQuayNorris Mfg. Co. v. National Labor R.

Reily v. Lancaster

39 Cal. 354 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1870

(Kelsey v. Abbott, 13 Cal. 609 ; Moss v. Shear, 25. Cal. 38; McMinn v. Whelan, 27 Cal. 318 ; Coppinger v. *357 Rice, 33 Cal. 425 ; Bernal v. Lynch, 36 Cal. 135 ; Barrett v. Amerein, 36 Cal. 322 .) … The former Board was to take charge of the work inside the city, and the other Board outside of it.

Buckman v. Landers

111 Cal. 347 · California Supreme Court · Feb 25, 1896

The appellants herein could, however, have appealed from this assessment, and could have had the error, if it was such, corrected upon such appeal by the board of supervisors. (People v. O’Neil, 51 Cal. 91 .) … (Williams v. Savings etc. Soc., 97 Cal. 122 .)

Allen v. Fennon

27 Cal. 68 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1864

(Brown v. Tolles, 7 Cal. 399 ; Garwood v. Simpson, 8 Cal. 108 ; Rhine v. Bogardus, 13 Cal. 73 ; Duff v. Fisher, 15 Cal. 379 ; Gagliardo v. Hoberlin, 18 Cal. 395 .

Higgins v. State Bar

46 Cal. 2d 241 · California Supreme Court · Feb 21, 1956

State Bar, 39 Cal.2d 161, 165 [ 246 P.2d 1 ]), petitioner has the burden of showing wherein the decision of the board is erroneous or unlawful. (Alkow v. State Bar, 38 Cal.2d 257, 258 [ 239 P.2d 871 ].) … (Burns v. State Bar, 45 Cal.2d 296, 303 [ 288 P.2d 514 ].)

Lorbeer v. Hutchinson

111 Cal. 272 · California Supreme Court · Feb 20, 1896

(People v. Bush, 40 Cal. 344 .) If Lorbeer was lawfully in office, the trustees could not by declaring the office vacant deprive him of his office. … (People v. Shorb, 100 Cal. 537 ; 38 Am. St. Rep. 310 .) In *274 such case the board could fill the vacancy without declaring the vacancy.

In Re Stevens

197 Cal. 408 · California Supreme Court · Nov 6, 1925

We cite, for instance, the following authorities: People v. Turner, 1 Cal. 143 ; Id., 1 Cal. 190 , Fletcher v. Daingerfield, 20 Cal. 427 , Cohen v. … In Danford v. Superior Court, 49 Cal.

People v. Campbell

59 Cal. 243 · California Supreme Court · Jul 15, 1881

In the case of Evans v. … ground to suppose that Brown meant to do him some great bodily harm, and Hays had, to prevent this, killed Brown, then the proof of previous threats by Brown would have been proper and highly important testimony, if recently

Powell v. Petch

166 Cal. 329 · California Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1913

(McCormick v. Brown, 36 Cal. 185 , [ 95 Am. Dec. 170 ] ; Biddel v. Brizzolara, 56 Cal. 382 ; Pierce v. Merrill, 128 Cal. 476 , [ 79 Am. St. Rep. 63 , 61 Pac. 67 ].) The letter written by Robert B. … (McCormick v. Brown, 36 Cal. *332 185, [ 95 Am. Dec. 170 ].)