Case law

People v. Houston

54 Cal. 536 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1880

By § 3454, the Board of Trustees are given power “ to employ engineers to survey, plan, locate, and estimate the cost of the work necessary for reclamation,” etc. *538 And § 3455 provides that they “ must report to the Board … (People v. Lynch, 51 Cal. 34 ; Brady v. King, 53 Id. 44 ; Taylor v. Palmer, 31 Id. 252.)

Segal v. State Bar

44 Cal. 3d 1077 · California Supreme Court · Mar 31, 1988

Larson (1979) 91 Cal.App.3d 383, 400 [ 153 Cal.Rptr. 912 ]; Brown v. Pacific Tel. & Tel. … (Jacobs v. State Bar (1933) 219 Cal. 59, 63 [ 25 P.2d 401 ]; Lyders v. State Bar (1938) 12 Cal.2d 261, 265 [ 83 P.2d 500 ]; Fall v. State Bar (1944) 25 Cal.2d 149, 160 [ 153 P.2d 1 ]; Lewis v.

Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Roberts

176 Cal. 183 · California Supreme Court · Sep 21, 1917

(See, also, Goldsmith v. Augusta & S. R. R. Co., 62 Ga. 468 ; Dardanelle etc. Ry. Co. v. Shinn, 52 Ark. 93 , [12 S, W. *192 183]; Philadelphia etc. R. R. Co. v. Commonwealth, 104 Pa. St. 80; People v. Morgan, 114 App. … Said board shall have • power to take evidence and determine the facts with respect to such -claim and in event said board finds the claim of such company to be true, said board may authorize such company to deduct from its

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.

King v. CompPartners, Inc.

236 Cal. Rptr. 3d 853 · California Supreme Court · Aug 23, 2018

(See Simmons v. … Name of Opinion King v.

Harman v. City and County of San Francisco

7 Cal. 3d 150 · California Supreme Court · May 15, 1972

(Neff v. Ernst (1957) 48 Cal.2d 628, 636 [ 311 P.2d 849 ]; Bacich v. Board of Control (1943) 23 Cal.2d 343, 349-350 [ 144 P.2d 818 ]; Ratchford v. County of Sonoma (1972) 22 Cal.App.3d 1056, 1069 [ 99 Cal.Rptr. 887 ].) … City of Manhattan Beach (1966) 65 Cal.2d 13, 24 [ 51 Cal.Rptr. 881 , 415 P.2d 769 ]; Wehrle v. Board of W. & P. Commrs. (1930) 211 Cal. 70, 72-73 [ 293 P. 67 ]; but cf. Silver v.

People v. Gonzalez

51 Cal. 3d 1179 · California Supreme Court · Dec 3, 1990

Especially problematic is their discussion of Brown error. ( People v. Brown (1985) 40 Cal.3d 512 [ 220 Cal. Rptr. 637 , 709 P.2d 440 ], revd. on other grounds sub nom. California v. … (See also People v. Brown (1985) 40 Cal.3d 512, 541 [ 220 Cal. Rptr. 637 , 709 P.2d 440 ].)

Donald L. v. Superior Court

7 Cal. 3d 592 · California Supreme Court · Jul 17, 1972

(Kent v. United States, supra.) … Therefore, we disapprove statements in People v. Brown (1970) 13 Cal.App.3d 876, 881 [ 91 Cal.Rptr. 904 ], and People v.

Olympic and Ga. Partners, LLC v. County of L.A.

California Supreme Court · Aug 28, 2025

(Elk Hills Power, LLC v. Board of Equalization (2013) 57 Cal.4th 593, 601 (Elk Hills).) … Our decision in Elk Hills Power, LLC v. Board of Equalization (2013) 57 Cal.4th 593 (Elk Hills) sets out the basic binary we must apply here.

Kapelus v. State Bar

44 Cal. 3d 179 · California Supreme Court · Dec 10, 1987

Raley Co. v. … (See Ettinger v. Board of Medical Quality Assurance (1982) 135 Cal.App.3d 853 , 856 [ 185 Cal.Rptr. 601 ].) Petitioner characterizes this lawsuit as a “Bivens action,” under Bivens v.

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.

County of Placer v. Freeman

149 Cal. 738 · California Supreme Court · Sep 25, 1906

This proposition seems so plain as not to require the citation of authority, but reference may be made to Mecham v. McKay, 37 Cal. 154 ; Harvey v. Bunker Hill Co., 2 Idaho, 731 , [ 24 Pac. 30 ]; Smith v. … St. 582, and State v.

City of Sacramento v. Dillman

102 Cal. 107 · California Supreme Court · Mar 29, 1894

And in support of this contention People v. Martin, 60 Cal. 153 , is cited. … And as said in a similar case (San Luis Obispo v.

Phillips v. State Bar

14 Cal. 3d 492 · California Supreme Court · Jun 2, 1975

This court has pointed out on innumerable occasions that the burden is on the petitioner to show that the board’s findings are not supported by the evidence. (See, e.g., Brody v. … (Toll v.

Buckman v. Cuneo

103 Cal. 62 · California Supreme Court · Jun 12, 1894

The facts necessary to be stated with reference to the points upon which this decision must rest are as follows: On March 7,1890, the board of supervisors of the city and county of San Francisco, in pursuance of the act of … In McVerry v.

Daniels v. Department of Motor Vehicles

33 Cal. 3d 532 · California Supreme Court · Mar 10, 1983

(La Prade v. Dept. of Water & Power (1945) 27 Cal. 2d 47, 51 [ 162 P.2d 13 ]; Parker v. City of Fountain Valley (1981) 127 Cal.App.3d 99, 113 [ 179 Cal.Rptr. 351 ]; Martin v. … (Edison Co. v. Labor Board (1938) 305 U.S. 197, 230 [ 83 L.Ed. 126, 140 , 59 S.Ct. 206 ].)

M.(k.) v. E.(g.)

18 Cal. Rptr. 3d 667 · California Supreme Court · Sep 1, 2004

(K.) v. E. (G.) No. S125643. Supreme Court of California. September 1, 2004. Petition for review granted. GEORGE, C.J., KENNARD, BAXTER, WERDEGAR, CHIN, BROWN, and MORENO, JJ., concur.

Gradle v. DOPPELMAYR USA

13 Cal. Rptr. 3d 300 · California Supreme Court · May 12, 2004

13 Cal.Rptr.3d 300 (2004) 89 P.3d 732 GRADLE v. DOPPELMAYR USA. No. S123905. Supreme Court of California. May 12, 2004. Review granted. … GEORGE, C.J., KENNARD, BAXTER, WERDEGAR, CHIN, BROWN, and MORENO, JJ., concur.

BIG CREEK LUMBER v. Santa Cruz County

14 Cal. Rptr. 3d 210 · California Supreme Court · Jun 9, 2004

14 Cal.Rptr.3d 210 (2004) 91 P.3d 162 BIG CREEK LUMBER v. SANTA CRUZ COUNTY. No. S123659. Supreme Court of California. June 9, 2004. Petition for review granted. … GEORGE, C.J., and KENNARD, BAXTER, WERDEGAR, CHIN, BROWN and MORENO, JJ.

Au-Yang v. Barton

90 Cal. Rptr. 2d 227 · California Supreme Court · Nov 18, 1999

.”]; Capital National Bank v. … (See Johnston v.