Case law

Weile v. Sturtevant

176 Cal. 767 · California Supreme Court · Dec 18, 1917

Brown, Inc., having been adjudicated a bankrupt, the trustee sold the chose in action which the bankrupt had against W. P. … W. 1051 ]); McIntosh v. Hoben, 11 Wis. 400 ; Felt v. Amidon, 48 Wis. 66 , [ 3 N. W. 825 ].) In these eases the decision was put upon the same grounds as those stated in Gerety v. Beading, 9 Phila.

Hibernia Savings & Loan Society v. Thornton

127 Cal. 575 · California Supreme Court · Feb 16, 1900

(Biddel v. Brizzolara, 64 Cal. 354 ; Brown v. Willis, 67 Cal. 235 ; Powell v. Patison, 100 Cal. 236 ; McKean v. German-American Bank, 118 Cal. 336 ; Woodward v. Brown, 119 Cal. 283 ; Savings Bank v. … (Stoddard v. Treadwell, 26 Cal. 294 ; Love v. Sierra Nevada Lake Water etc. Co., 32 Cal. 649 ; 91 Am. Dec. 602 ; Hallock v. Jaudin, 34 Cal. 167 ; Joseph v. Holt, 37 Cal. 253 ; Murdock v. Brooks, 38 Cal. 596 ; Lambert v.

People v. Ford Motor Co.

188 Cal. 8 · California Supreme Court · Jan 27, 1922

(Miller & Lux v. Richardson, 182 Cal. 115 [ 187 Pac. 411 ].) … Co. v.

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.

Tieberg v. Unemployment Ins. App. Bd.

2 Cal. 3d 943 · California Supreme Court · Jul 30, 1970

TIEBERG, as Director, etc., Plaintiff and Respondent, v. UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD, Defendant and Respondent; LASSIE TELEVISION, Real Party in Interest and Appellant. Docket No. L.A. 29725. … In Bartels v.

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.

Braun v. Crew

183 Cal. 728 · California Supreme Court · Sep 22, 1920

(Woodward v. Brown, 119 Cal. 292 , [ 63 Am. St. Rep. 108 , 51 Pac. 2 , 542); Herd v. Tuohy, 133 Cal. 61 , [ 65 Pac. 139 ]; Tuohy v. Woods, 122 Cal. 667 , [ 55 Pac. 683 ]; Tulare Co. Bank v. … (Brown v. Willis, 67 Cal. 235 , [7 Pac. 682]; Biddel 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.

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.

Buckley v. Howe

86 Cal. 596 · California Supreme Court · Dec 6, 1890

(Bludworth v. Lake, 33 Cal. 256 ; Eversdon v. Mayhew, 65 Cal. 163 ; Hosmer v. Wallace, 47 Cal. 461 ; Rutledge v. Murphy, 51 Cal. 388 ; Plummer v. Brown, 70 Cal. 544 ; Sanford v. Sanford, 13 Pac. Rep. 602 ; Johnson v. … (Plummer v. Brown, 70 Cal. 544 .)

In Re Silverton

14 Cal. 3d 517 · California Supreme Court · Jun 3, 1975

This is a proceeding to review recommendations of the Disciplinary Board of the State Bar (Board) in L.A. No. 30359 that petitioner be disbarred and in L.A. … As hereinabove noted, the recommendation of the local administrative committee was suspension for a substantial period of time, while the Board has recommended disbarment. (3) As explained in Toll 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.

Saunders v. Clark

29 Cal. 299 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1865

(The People v. Utica Insurance Company, 15 John., 380; Whitney v. Whitney, 14 Mass. 92 .) … This grant had been presented to the Board of Land Commissioners established by the Government of the United States for the purpose of adjudicating upon all such claims, and was still pending before them, undertennined.

People Ex Rel. Post v. San Joaquin Valley Agric. Ass'n

151 Cal. 797 · California Supreme Court · Sep 4, 1907

The case of Downing v. Indiana State Board of Agriculture, 129 Ind. 443 , [ 28 N. E. 123, 614 ], holding that institution to be a private corporation, is cited as opposed to these views. … Dec. 742 ] ; Mayrhofer v. Board, 89 Cal. 110 , [ 23 Am. St. Rep. 451 , 26 Pac. 646 ] ; Witter v. School Dist., 121 Cal. 350 , [ 66 Am. St. Rep. 33 , [ 53 Pac. 905 ] ; Whittaker 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 ].)

Department of Public Works v. Superior Court

197 Cal. 215 · California Supreme Court · Sep 30, 1925

Certain essentials to the proper exercise of the power to issue and determine such a writ must concur (Quinchard, v. Board of Trustees, 113 Cal. 664 [ 45 Pac. 856 ]). … The cases of Imperial Water Co. v.