Case law

Abbott v. City of Los Angeles

50 Cal. 2d 438 · California Supreme Court · Jun 6, 1958

In Dillon v. Board of Pension Commrs. (1941), supra, 18 Cal.2d 427, 431-432 [7] (referring to Dryden v. … Board of Pen *458 sion Commrs. (1936), 6 Cal.2d 575 [ 59 P.2d 104 ] ; Hermanson v. Board of Pension Commrs. (1933), 219 Cal. 62 [ 28 P.2d 21 ]; Stamper v.

In Re Lyons

15 Cal. 3d 322 · California Supreme Court · Sep 30, 1975

(See Sevin v. State Bar (1973) 8 Cal.3d 641, 646 [ 105 Cal.Rptr. 513 , 504 P.2d 449 ]; Black v. State Bar (1972) 7 Cal.3d 676, 694 [ 103 Cal.Rptr. 288 , 499 P.2d 968 ]; Cutler v. … In Sturr v.

Di Gaeta v. State Bar

59 Cal. 2d 116 · California Supreme Court · Feb 14, 1963

The burden is upon one seeking a review of a recommendation of the Board of Governors to show that its findings are not supported by the evidence or that its recommendation is erroneous or unlawful. (Rock v. … The penalty recommended by the Board of Governors—six months' suspension, with three months’ “actual” and probationary conditions, including restitution to the Perezes of $1,750—is not excessive. (Krieger v.

Hansen v. State Bar

23 Cal. 3d 68 · California Supreme Court · Dec 29, 1978

Lewis’ mental health, the board was entitled to disbelieve petitioner’s beneficent motive in this regard. We give great weight to the board’s findings based on the credibility of witnesses. (Selznick v. … (See, e.g., Lester v. State Bar (1976) 17 Cal.3d 547, 551 [ 131 Cal.Rptr. 225 , 551 P.2d 841 ]; Alkow v. State Bar (1971) 3 Cal.3d 924, 936 [ 92 Cal.Rptr. 278 , 479 P.2d 638 ].)

City of Santa Barbara v. Adamson

27 Cal. 3d 123 · California Supreme Court · May 15, 1980

(See Atkisson v. … Adamson in fact does operate a “boarding house.” 5 (See too People v.

De Sepulveda v. Baugh

74 Cal. 468 · California Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1887

This case seems very plainly to be within the rule laid down in Crosby v. Dowd, 61 Cal. 557 . … by deed executed so and so, or a line running north to the southern boundary of Brown’s land?

Williams v. Bergin

127 Cal. 578 · California Supreme Court · Feb 16, 1900

Co. v. Bolton, 97 Cal. 8 ). The complaint alleges that one C. B. … (California Improvement Co. v. Reynolds, 123 Cal. 88 .) It was not necessary that the superintendent of streets should fix in the contract the “day” upon which the work should commence. (Rauer v. Lowe, 107 Cal. 229 .)

Branick v. DOWNEY SAVINGS & LOAN

28 Cal. Rptr. 3d 2 · California Supreme Court · Apr 27, 2005

28 Cal.Rptr.3d 2 (2005) 110 P.3d 1217 BRANICK v. DOWNEY SAVINGS & LOAN. No. S132433. Supreme Court of California. April 27, 2005. Petition for review granted; issues limited Petition for review GRANTED. … GEORGE, C.J., KENNARD, BAXTER, WERDEGAR, CHIN, BROWN, and MORENO, JJ., concur.

O'Dea v. Cook

176 Cal. 659 · California Supreme Court · Dec 12, 1917

From this judgment the board of trustees has appealed. … (United States v. Teller, 107 U. S. 64 , [ 27 L. Ed. 352 , 2 Sup. Ct. Rep. 39]; Mahon v. Board of Education, 171 N. Y. 263 , [ 89 Am. St. Rep. 810 , 63 N„ E. 1107]; State v. Love, 89 Neb. 149 , [Ann.

Walter v. State Bar

2 Cal. 3d 880 · California Supreme Court · Jul 13, 1970

The statement of this court in McGrath v. … As stated by this court in Most v.

Tognazzi v. Wilhelm

6 Cal. 2d 123 · California Supreme Court · Apr 16, 1936

We pause to cite but a few of the innumerable authorities containing declarations to this effect: Bennett v. Brown, 206 Cal. 424, 428 [ 274 Pac. 532 ]; Faria v. Faria, 100 Cal. App. 177, 181 [280 Pac. 187]; Allstead v. … In Brown v.

Irwin v. Golden State Auto Tour Corp.

178 Cal. 10 · California Supreme Court · Mar 23, 1918

The first contention urged by the appellant is that the court erred in giving the following instruction: “You are instructed that, if you find from the evidence that plaintiff was about to board the automobile truck as the … The following authorities sustain this view: Bresee v. Los Angeles Traction Co., 149 Cal. 131 , [5 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1059, 85 Pac. 152 ]; Robinson v. New York Cent. R. R. Co., 66 N. Y. 11 , [ 23 Am. Rep. 1 ]; Dyer v.

In Re Distefano

13 Cal. 3d 476 · California Supreme Court · Feb 11, 1975

Although we, of course, have the final word as to the discipline to be imposed, the recommendation of the board is given great weight (Schullman v. … (See, e.g., Sampson v. State Bar, 12 Cal.3d 70, 84 [ 115 Cal.Rptr. 43 , 524 P.2d 139 ]; Himmel v. State Bar, 4 Cal.3d 786, 799 [ 94 Cal.Rptr. 825 , 484 P.2d 993 ].)

People v. Calhoun

50 Cal. 2d 137 · California Supreme Court · Mar 27, 1958

(People v. Gilbert, 26 Cal.App.2d 1, 26 [ 78 P.2d 770 ].) … (People v. Steccone, 36 Cal.2d 234, 237 [2, 3] [ 223 P.2d 17 ] ; People v. Lyon, 135 Cal.App.2d 558, 578 [5] [ 288 P.2d 57 ]; People v. Chait, 69 Cal.App.2d 503, 515 [10] [ 159 P.2d 445 ] ; People v.

Haskell v. City of Long Beach

153 Cal. 543 · California Supreme Court · May 12, 1908

(Behrenmeyer v. Kreitz, 135 Ill. 595 , [ 26 N. E. 705 ].)” … (Tibbe v. Smith, 108 Cal. 108 , [ 49 Am. St. Rep. 68 , 41 Pac. 454 ].)

KRISTINE v. Lisa

18 Cal. Rptr. 3d 668 · California Supreme Court · Sep 1, 2004

(KRISTINE Renee) v. R. (LISA Ann). No. S126945. Supreme Court of California. September 1, 2004. Petition for review granted. GEORGE, C.J., KENNARD, BAXTER, WERDEGAR, CHIN, BROWN, and MORENO, JJ., concur.

People ex rel. Webster v. Babcock

123 Cal. 307 · California Supreme Court · Jan 19, 1899

Cases may be instanced, and indeed some are cited in People v. … Thus, in State v. Conrades, 45 Mo. 47 , the act under consideration provided: “If any officer in St.

Ostrander v. City of Richmond

155 Cal. 468 · California Supreme Court · Apr 9, 1909

(Galena v. Amy, 72 U. S. (5 Wall.) 705 ; Village of Kent v. United States ex rel. Dana, 113 Fed. 232 ; State v. Board of Commissioners of Buffalo Co., 6 Neb. 454 ; People v. Board of Supervisors of Otsego Co., 51 N. … Y. 401 ; People v. Board of Commissioners of Rio Grande Co., 7 Colo. App. 229 , [ 42 Pac. 1032 ].) Examining the statute before us, we find no special reason for the construction which appellant desires.

Seller v. Market-Street Railway Co.

139 Cal. 268 · California Supreme Court · Jun 12, 1903

(See Herbert v. Southern Pacific Co., 121 Cal. 227 ; Fox v. Oakland Consolidated St. Ry. Co., 118 Cal. 61 ; 1 Mc-Kune v. Santa Clara Valley M. & L. Co., 110 Cal. 484 .) … In Holloway v. Pasadena etc. Ry.

In re Mohammad

12 Cal. 5th 518 · California Supreme Court · Jan 3, 2022

The proponents’ rebuttal responded by stating that the initiative would not authorize parole for violent offenders, and cited Brown v. … Elec., supra, rebuttal to argument against Prop. 57, p. 59, quoting Brown v. Superior Court, supra, 63 Cal.4th at p. 352.)