Case law

People v. Atkins

25 Cal. 4th 76 · California Supreme Court · Mar 12, 2001

BROWN, J. I concur in the determination that arson is a general intent crime precluding a defense of voluntary intoxication. I write separately because I remain convinced People v. … Mendoza (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1114 [ 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 428 , 959 P.2d 735 ] (Mendoza) was wrongly decided (see id. at pp. 1138-1141 (dis. opn. of Brown, J.)) and, as this case illustrates, will continue to wreak havoc in the lower

Webb v. Special Electric Co., Inc.

63 Cal. 4th 167 · California Supreme Court · May 23, 2016

(Brown v. Superior Court (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1049, 1057 [ 245 Cal.Rptr. 412 , 751 P.2d 470 ] (Brown).) The exploding bottle in Escola v. … (c); Brown, supra, 44 Cal.3d at p. 1057.) 2.

Black v. Harrison Home Co.

155 Cal. 121 · California Supreme Court · Jan 7, 1909

In Bates v. … In Pettibone v.

Lane v. Hughes Aircraft Co.

93 Cal. Rptr. 2d 60 · California Supreme Court · May 10, 2000

(Conc. opn. of Brown, J, post, 93 Cal. Rptr.2d at p. 76, 993 P.2d at p. 402.) … (See, e.g., Sindell v.

Vargas v. Municipal Court

22 Cal. 3d 902 · California Supreme Court · Dec 21, 1978

Meat Cutters v. … Growers Assn. v.

In Re George

130 Cal. Rptr. 2d 655 · California Supreme Court · Jan 15, 2003

The People, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. George T., Defendant and Appellant. No. S111780. Supreme Court of California. En Banc. January 15, 2003. Petition for review GRANTED. … GEORGE, C.J., and KENNARD, WERDEGAR, BROWN, and MORENO, JJ., concur.

Narlian v. State Bar

21 Cal. 2d 876 · California Supreme Court · Apr 23, 1943

As was observed in Peek v. … (Mills v. State Bar, 6 Cal.2d 565 [ 58 P.2d 1273 ] ; Kennedy v. State Bar, 13 Cal.2d 236 [ 88 P.2d 920 ]; Petersen v. State Bar, 16 Cal.2d 57 [ 104 P.2d 769 ] ; Hennessy v.

Avila v. JADO PROPERTIES INC.

8 Cal. Rptr. 3d 540 · California Supreme Court · Jan 14, 2004

8 Cal.Rptr.3d 540 (2004) 82 P.3d 746 AVILA v. JADO PROPERTIES INC. No. S120396. Supreme Court of California. January 14, 2004. Review granted. … GEORGE, C.J., KENNARD, BAXTER, WERDEGAR, CHIN, BROWN, and MORENO, JJ., concur.

Emery v. San Francisco Gas Co.

28 Cal. 345 · California Supreme Court · Jul 15, 1865

R. 638; Reeves v. Treasurer of Wood County, 8 Ohio St. R. 335 ; Weeks v. Milwaukie, 10 Wis. 256 ; Garrett v. City of St. Louis, 25 Mo. 508 ; Newby v. Platte County, Ib. 259 ; Williams v. … In Hart v.

In Re Estate of Plumel

151 Cal. 77 · California Supreme Court · Apr 10, 1907

Ency. of Law, 2d ed. 578 ; Habergham v. Vincent, 2 Ves. Jr. 204, 228 ; Smart v. Prujean, 6 Ves. Jr. 560 ; Allen v. Maddock, 11 Moore P. C. 427 ; Brown v. Clark, 77 N. V. 369.) … Similarly, in Brown v. Clark, 77 N.

Edson v. Southern Pacific R.R. Co.

144 Cal. 182 · California Supreme Court · Jul 22, 1904

of railroad commissioners of this state, and has not been modified by said board. *186 “On said date defendant issued its circular 86 referred to in the complaint, hut said circular did not purport to modify or reduce the … Code, sec. 490; Robinson v. Southern Pacific Co., 105 Cal. 526 .)

Hope v. Barnett

78 Cal. 9 · California Supreme Court · Dec 29, 1888

(Harding v. Jasper, 14 Cal. 642, 647 .) … (Sullivan v. State, 52 Ind. 369 ; Summers v. State, 51 Ind. 201 ; Harding v. Jasper, supra.) It was held by this court in Bolger v.

Gilfillan v. Shattuck

142 Cal. 27 · California Supreme Court · Jan 27, 1904

Gilfillan removed the fence; but afterwards said Phoebe repudiated her promises, and, upon application to the board of supervisors *32 of the city and county, .and without the knowledge of plaintiff, procured said board to … (Webster’s Dictionary; Woodyer v. Hadden, 5 Taunt. 125, and Bateman v. Bluck, 14 Eng. Law & Eq. 69.) Whether such a cul-de-sac can be a public highway has been a mooted question.

Unterthiner v. Desert Hospital District

33 Cal. 3d 285 · California Supreme Court · Jan 24, 1983

(See Savelli v. Board of Medical Examiners (1964) 229 Cal.App.2d 124, 129, 131-132 [ 40 Cal.Rptr. 171 ].) … Board of Administration (1976) 54 Cal.App.3d 1018 , 1021 et seq. [ 127 Cal.Rptr. 11 ] [disability pension application].) In Frink v.

Colburn Biological Institute v. DeBolt

6 Cal. 2d 631 · California Supreme Court · Jun 30, 1936

(Stenzel v. Kronick, supra; Rubin v. Platt Music Co., supra.) The present litigation is the culmination of a long series of disputes between rival factions of the board of trustees of the plaintiff corporation. … They were deprived of their right to vote at the elections to fill vacancies on the board. (Wright v. Central California C. W. Co., 67 Cal. 532 [ 8 Pac. 70 ].)

Johnson v. Gunn

148 Cal. 745 · California Supreme Court · Feb 27, 1906

In Welsh v. … (Bloss v. Lewis, 109 Cal. 497 , [41 Pac. 1081]; Pratt v. Browne, 135 Cal. 652 , [ 67 Pac. 1082 ].)

Federal Construction Co. v. Curd

179 Cal. 479 · California Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1918

The petitioner further contends that the case of Bentley v. … The case of Bernard Co. v. Los Angeles, 18 Cal.

Miller v. Pillsbury

164 Cal. 199 · California Supreme Court · Nov 20, 1912

An alternative writ of mandate was issued in which the board was required to hear Miller’s application or to show cause why such action should not be had. … (Bourn v. Hart, 93 Cal. 321 , [ 27 Am. St. Rep. 203 , 15 L. R. A. 431, 28 Pac. 951 ] ; Chapman v. State, 104 Cal. 690 , [ 43 Am. St. Rep. 158 , 38 Pac. 457 ] ; Melvin v. State, 121 Cal. 16 , [ 53 Pac. 416 ] ; Denning v.

Campbell v. Allstate Ins. Co.

60 Cal. 2d 303 · California Supreme Court · Aug 15, 1963

App.2d 151, 161 [ 225 P.2d 255 ]; Gibson v. Colonial Ins. Co., 92 Cal. App.2d 33, 35-36 [ 206 P.2d 387 ]; see National Auto. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Brown, 197 Cal. App.2d 605, 608 [ 17 Cal. Rptr. 347 ].) … Statements contrary to our views appearing in Wasson v. Atlantic National Ins. Co., 207 Cal. App.2d 464, 467 [ 24 Cal. Rptr. 665 ], National Auto. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Brown, 197 Cal. App.2d 605, 609-610 [ 17 Cal.

Woolwine v. Superior Court

182 Cal. 388 · California Supreme Court · Mar 10, 1920

(Lassen County v. Shinn, 88 Cal. 512, [ 26 Pac. 366 ]. Other eases to the same effect are Hornblower v. Duden, 35 Cal. 670 ; Merriam v. Barnum, 116 Cal. 623 , [ 48 Pac. 727 ]; Merced Co. v. … A distinction is made in Merriam v.