Case law

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.

Boscus v. Bohlig

173 Cal. 687 · California Supreme Court · Nov 23, 1916

(Brown v. Scott, 25 Cal. 189 -196.) Other authorities sanctioning the entry of a judgment on the pleadings when the answer is sham and frivolous are Hemme v. Hays, 55 Cal. 337 ; Felch v. … (Harmon Lumber Co. v. Brown, 165 Cal. 193 -197, [ 131 Pac. 368 ]; Gentle v. Britton, 158 Cal. 328 -332, [ 111 Pac. 9 ].)

Lerner v. Superior Court

38 Cal. 2d 676 · California Supreme Court · Mar 25, 1952

(Vosburg v. Vosburg, 137 Cal. 493, 495 [ 68 P. 694 ] ; Ex parte Queirolo, 119 Cal. 635, 636 [ 51 P. 956 ] ; Browne v. Browne, 60 Cal.App.2d 637, 642 [ 141 P.2d 428 ] ; Moon v. … In re Siddall, 143 Cal. 313, 315 [ 76 P. 1115 ] ; see In re Browning, 108 Cal.App. 503, 507 [ 291 P. 650 ].)

People v. Berger

44 Cal. 2d 459 · California Supreme Court · Apr 27, 1955

Brown, Attorney General, Clarence A. Linn, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Elizabeth Miller and Arlo E. Smith, Deputy Attorneys General, Thomas C. … Co. v. Willett, 216 Cal. 387, 390 [ 14 P.2d 526 ]; Brownell v. Superior Court, 157 Cal. 703, 708 [ 109 P. 91 ]; Crim v. Kessing, 89 Cal. 478, 489 [ 26 P. 1074 , 23 Am.St.Rep. 491 ]; see State Board of Equalization v.

Hohenshelt v. Superior Court

California Supreme Court · Aug 11, 2025

Brown v. Dillard’s, Inc., and Sink v. … Given the Legislature’s express intent to affirm Brown v. Dillard’s, Inc. (2005) 430 F.3d 1004 (Brown) and Sink v.

People v. Pena

9 Cal. Rptr. 3d 107 · California Supreme Court · Feb 5, 2004

In People v. … In Moles v.

Scott v. Boyle

164 Cal. 321 · California Supreme Court · Dec 10, 1912

(Fowler v. Peirce, 2 Cal. 167 ; People v. Whitman, 6 Cal. 659 ; McCauley v. Brooks, 16 Cal. 46 , 63 ; Carroll v. Seibenthaler, 37 Cal. 195 ; Lawrence v. Booth, 46 Cal. 189 ; Kelso v. … (Dougherty v. Austin, 94 Cal. 601 , [16 L. R. A. 161, 28 Pac. 834 , 29 Pac. 1092 ].)

Glickman v. State Bar

9 Cal. 3d 179 · California Supreme Court · Mar 28, 1973

(Sturr v. State Bar, 52 Cal.2d 125, 127 [ 338 P.2d 897 ].) … “V.

People v. Nishiyama

135 Cal. 299 · California Supreme Court · Jan 2, 1902

Brown, and that therefore he is guilty of forgery, and cannot be guilty of uttering a fictitious signature or instru *301 ment within the meaning of said section 476 of the Penal Code. … Brown written by defendant? To warrant a finding that it did bear that name, the spelling should have been such that when pronounced it sounded like that name.

Woodland Hills Residents Assn., Inc. v. City Council

26 Cal. 3d 938 · California Supreme Court · Apr 24, 1980

Corn, Brown, Winfield & Canzoneri, Thomas F. Winfield III, Louis E. Goebel, Ruth R. … Code, § 17.06.) [8] Section 165 provides in pertinent part: "Every person who gives or offers a bribe to any member of any common council, board of supervisors, or board of trustees of any county, city and county, city, or

Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal

17 Cal. 2d 280 · California Supreme Court · Feb 7, 1941

Ed. 408 ] [shipping board]; De Pauw University v. Brunk, 53 Fed. (2d) 647, 652; Palermo L. & W. Co. v. Railroad Com., 227 Fed. 708 ; Hammerstrom v. Toy Nat. Bank, 81 Fed. (2d) 628 [tax board]; American Bond etc. Co. v. … Co. v. Railroad Com., supra; Carlson v. Railroad Com., 216 Cal. 653, 655 [ 15 Pac. (2d) 859 ]; Red River Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Com., supra; McCardle v. Board of Commissioners, 195 Ind. 281 [ 144 N.

Sipper v. Urban

22 Cal. 2d 138 · California Supreme Court · May 3, 1943

(See Standard Oil Co. v. State Board of Equal. (1936), 6 Cal.2d 557 [ 59 P.2d 119 ]; Whitten v. State Bd. of Optometry (1937), 8 Cal.2d 444 [ 65 P.2d 1296 , 115 A.L.R. 1 ]; Drummey v. … Justice Traynor in Dare v. Board of Medical Examiners (1943), supra, 21 Cal.2d 790, 803 [ 136 P.2d 304 ].

Cutler v. State Bar

71 Cal. 2d 241 · California Supreme Court · Jun 18, 1969

(See Schullman v. … The disciplinary board’s recommendation of disbarment in L.A. 29578 was made without consideration of petitioner’s misconduct in L.A. 29579. The board considered petitioner’s misconduct in L.A 29327 (see Cutler v.

Loeb v. Kimmerle

215 Cal. 143 · California Supreme Court · Feb 29, 1932

In More v. … In Adams v.

People ex rel. Tallant v. Fogg

11 Cal. 351 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1858

People v. Olds, 3 Cal. Rep., p. *357 171, and cases there cited, particularly the full note in Fish v. Weatherwax, 2d Johnson’s Few York Cases. … As authorities, see cases just cited, and People v. Trustees of Brooklyn, 1 Wendall, p. 318; Boyce v. Russell, 2 Cowen, p. 444; and People v. Bell, 4 Cal. Rep., pp. 178 and 179.

Morrill v. Stone & Webster Construction Co.

177 Cal. 199 · California Supreme Court · Jan 14, 1918

The plaintiff did not look at the board, but walked right along after his fellow-workman, supposing that the boards were of sufficient strength to hold his weight. … As' to excessive damages, see Aldrich v. Palmer, 24 Cal. 516 . The judgment is affirmed. Sloss, J., and Lawlor, J., concurred. Hearing in Bank denied.

McClatchy Newspapers v. Superior Court

44 Cal. 3d 1162 · California Supreme Court · Apr 18, 1988

As the Court of Appeal noted in Board of Trustees v. … (See, e.g., Allen v. Payne (1934) 1 Cal.2d 607, 608-609 [ 36 P.2d 614 ] [no power to hire investigator]; Board of Trustees v.

Modern Barber Colleges, Inc. v. California Employment Stabilization Commission

31 Cal. 2d 720 · California Supreme Court · Apr 29, 1948

The petitioner relies strongly on Laisne v. State Board of Optometry, 19 Cal.2d 831 [ 123 P.2d 457 ]. … State Board of Equal., supra, 6 Cal.2d 562 ).

Sunny Slope Water Co. v. City of Pasadena

1 Cal. 2d 87 · California Supreme Court · May 31, 1934

(Wheat v. Barrett, 210 Cal. 193 [ 290 Pac. 1033 ]; Brougher v. Board of Public Works, 205 Cal. 426 [ 271 Pac. 487 ] ; Miller v. Board of Public Works, 195 Cal. 477 [ 234 Pac. 381 , 38 A. L. … (Miller v. Board of Public Works, supra; Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U. S. 365 [47 Sup. Ct. 114, 71 L. Ed. 303 , 54 A. L. R. 1016].)

Christophel v. Riley

206 Cal. 242 · California Supreme Court · Jan 22, 1929

On November 6, 1917, the board adopted and determined upon a project known and designated as “Sutter-Butte By-Pass Project Number Six.” *244 By resolution, said board authorized and approved the imposition of an assessment … (Hershey v. Reclamation Dist. 730, 162 Cal. 401, 405 [ 122 Pac. 1074 ].)