Case law

People v. Banks

2 Cal. 3d 127 · California Supreme Court · Mar 2, 1970

Presiding Justice Gerald Brown in the opinion prepared by him for the Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division One (People v. Banks, 4 Crim. 3293, filed March 14, 1969, certified for non-publication).

Merchs. Nat'l Bank of Santa Monica v. Bentel

166 Cal. 473 · California Supreme Court · Dec 3, 1913

(Applegarth v. Abbott, 64 Cal. 459 , [ 2 Pac. 43 ]; Kellogg v. Pacific Box Factory, 57 Cal. 329 ; Haber v. Brown, 101 Cal. 451 , [ 36 Pac. 1035 ] ; Cousins v. Partridge, 79 Cal. 229 , [21 Pac. 745]; Jones v. … (Higgins v. Wortell, 18 Cal. 333 ; Griffith v. Grogan, 12 Cal. 322 ; Welch v. Allington, 23 Cal. 322 ; Brown v. Olmsted, 50 Cal. 165; Comptoir v. Dresbach, 78 Cal. 21 , [ 20 Pac. 28 ]; Jenne v.

Symington v. City of Albany

5 Cal. 3d 23 · California Supreme Court · May 27, 1971

Neither the city nor the Workmen’s Compensation Appeals Board could allow any credit if the contract of employment fails so to provide. (See City of Oakland v. Workmen’s Comp. App. … (Lyons v.

Wells v. State Bar

20 Cal. 3d 708 · California Supreme Court · Mar 6, 1978

The board unanimously recommends a three-month suspension. … (Magee v. State Bar (1975) supra, 13 Cal.3d 700, 708 ; Lewis v. State Bar (1973) 9 Cal.3d 704, 712-713 [ 108 Cal.Rptr. 821 , 511 P.2d 1173 ].)

Vincent v. Mott

163 Cal. 342 · California Supreme Court · Jul 17, 1912

It does not appear from the petition presented that the Oakland council has been asked to appoint on the election boards to hold the recall election persons of whom half belong to the Republican party and half to the Democratic

Leeman v. Perris Irrigation District

140 Cal. 540 · California Supreme Court · Oct 9, 1903

It was held in Hughson v. … The board of directors has only such powers as are expressly given or implied as necessary to carry out the main purpose of the act. (Stimson v. Alessandro Irrigation Dist., 135 Cal. 389 .)

Lufkin v. Lufkin

209 Cal. 710 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1930

Defendant relies upon McKay v. … In McKay v. McKay, supra, the care, custody and control of the minor children was awarded to the wife.

People Ex Rel. Richardson v. Cobb

133 Cal. 74 · California Supreme Court · May 29, 1901

(Kahn v. Sutro, 114 Cal. 335 .) … (Kahn v. Sutro, 114 Cal. 331 et seq.) Under this provision the legislature has power to fix the terms of justices of the peace generally. *77 (Kahn v. Sutro , 333, 334; People v. Sands, 102 Cal. 15 ; Rauer v.

People ex rel. Church v. Hester

6 Cal. 679 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1856

The writ shall be granted in all cases where any inferior tribunal, board or officer, exercising judicial functions, has exceeded the jurisdiction of such tribunal, board or officer, and there is no appeal; or, in the judgment … In this connection it may be remarked, that the eases relied on by the petitioner were decided before the case of Caulfield v. Hudson, and therefore have no application. Petition denied.

Ex parte Campbell

74 Cal. 20 · California Supreme Court · Oct 31, 1887

(Bartemeyer v. Iowa, supra; License Cases, 5 How. 504 ; Beer Co. v. Massachusetts, 97 U. S. 32 ). … This was decided in People v.

Stockton Savings & Loan Bank v. Mello

201 Cal. 194 · California Supreme Court · May 4, 1927

The. petitioner also relies upon Brown v. … v.

Phillips v. Noble

50 Cal. 2d 163 · California Supreme Court · Mar 28, 1958

(See Shaw v. Pacific Greyhound Lines, ante, p. 153 [ 323 P.2d 391 ] ; Brown v. George Pepperdine Foundation, 23 Cal.2d 256, 261-262 [ 143 P.2d 929 ] ; England v. … The case of Godfrey v. Brown, 220 Cal. 57 [ 29 P.2d 165 , 93 A.L.R. 1092 ], relied upon by plaintiff, is clearly distinguishable.

Younger v. State Bar

12 Cal. 3d 274 · California Supreme Court · May 16, 1974

(See Best v. State Bar, 57 Cal.2d 633, 635-637 [ 21 Cal.Rptr. 589 , 371 P.2d 325 ]; Higgins v. State Bar, 46 Cal.2d 241, 245-246 [ 293 P.2d 455 ]; McCue v. State Bar, 4 Cal.2d 79, 80-81 [ 47 P.2d 268 ].) … (See Barreiro v. State Bar, 2 Cal.3d 912, 923 (2) [ 88 Cal.Rptr. 192 , 471 P.2d 992 ]; Werner v. State Bar, supra, 13 Cal.2d 666, 676-677 .)

People v. Slaughter

120 Cal. Rptr. 2d 477 · California Supreme Court · May 30, 2002

Defendant placed his backpack on the floor of Brown’s vehicle, and “a couple rolls” of money spilled out. When Brown dropped him off, defendant offered Brown “a handful of money” for gas. Brown declined the offer. … (California v. Brown, supra, 479 U.S. at pp. 542-543 [ 107 S.Ct. at p. 840 ].)

Spinks v. City of Los Angeles

220 Cal. 366 · California Supreme Court · Mar 26, 1934

Miller v. Board of Public Works, 195 Cal. 477 [ 234 Pac. 381 , 38 A. L. R. 1479], and Jardine v. City of Pasadena, 199 Cal. 64 [ 248 Pac. 225 , 48 A. L. R. 509], are leading cases in this state on that subject. … (Reichelderfer v. Quinn, 287 U. S. 315 [53 Sup. Ct. 177, 77 L. Ed. 331 ]; Polack v. Trustees, etc., 48 Cal. 490 ; Seattle Land Imp. Co. v. City of Seattle, 37 Wash. 274 [ 79 Pac. 780 ].)

In Re Estate of Duffill

180 Cal. 748 · California Supreme Court · Jul 30, 1919

A very similar case to the one at bar is Brown v. Severson, 59 Tenn. (12 Ileisk.) 381. … (Kilpatrick v. Johnson, 15 N. Y. 322 ; Pruyn v. Sears, 96 Misc. Rep. 200 , [ 161 N. Y. Supp. 58 ] ; Cochrane v. Schell, 140 N. Y. 516 , [ 35 N. E. 971 ]; Manice v. Manice, *761 43 N. Y. 303 -376; Matter of Ossman v.

De Sanchez v. Grace Methodist Episcopal Church

114 Cal. 295 · California Supreme Court · Sep 16, 1896

(See Challiss v. Depot etc. Co., 45 Kan. 398 ; Atchison etc. R. R. Co. v. Patch, 28 Kan. 470—cases turning upon a pe *299 culiar statute.) … Code, secs. 593, 595, 603; Robertson v. Bullions, 11 N. Y. 243 ; People’s Bank v. St. Anthony’s etc. Church, 109 N. Y. 512 .)

Balfour-Guthrie Investment Co. v. Woodworth

124 Cal. 169 · California Supreme Court · Mar 30, 1899

In Granger v. Original Empire etc. … (Toland v. Toland, 123 Cal. 140 .) 4.

City Street Improvement Co. v. Taylor

138 Cal. 364 · California Supreme Court · Jan 21, 1903

(Partridge v. Lucas, 99 Cal. 519 .) In Beaudry v. … Nor was the defect in the assessment one that could be rectified by an appeal to the board or cured by a failure to appeal. (De Haven v. Berendes, 135 Cal. 179 , and authorities cited, 181-182.)

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 ].