Case law

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.

Rankin v. Sisters of Mercy

82 Cal. 88 · California Supreme Court · Dec 16, 1889

Mary’s Hospital, wherein it received, boarded, lodged, and cared for persons for pay or hire; that on the tenth day of July, 1882, Collins became an inmate of said house, to be boarded, lodged, and cared for by defendant, … Proc., sec. 462; Curtiss v. Sprague, 49 Cal. 301 ; Colton L. & W. Co. v. Raynor, 57 Cal. 588 .) And we also think that the evidence was sufficient to warrant the instruction. Collins was a religious devotee.

Savings & Loan Society v. City & County of San Francisco

131 Cal. 356 · California Supreme Court · Jan 14, 1901

(San Francisco v. Flood, 64 Cal. 504 .) … (Mayrhofer v. Board of Education, 89 Cal. 110 2 ; Whittaker v. County of Tuolumne, 96 Cal. 100 .)

People v. Scott

14 Cal. 4th 544 · California Supreme Court · Dec 19, 1996

Opinion BROWN, J. A jury convicted defendants Damien Scott and Derrick Brown of various crimes for their part in a drive-by shooting which resulted *546 in the death of one person and injury to several others. … (See People v.

People v. Smith

164 Cal. 451 · California Supreme Court · Jan 8, 1913

Brown, and Mr. Doan, the stenographic reporter. … (People v. Sanchez, 24 Cal. 17 .)

People v. McGrew

1 Cal. 3d 404 · California Supreme Court · Dec 17, 1969

He observed several bricks or small packages, wrapped in brown paper or newspaper. He could not see the contents of the packages and he did not open any of them. … One of the Civil Aeronautics Board rules *415 provides that "The carrier has the right, but not the obligation, to inspect shipments." [1] In People v. Edwards (1969) 71 Cal.2d 1096 [ 80 Cal.

Neal v. State of California

55 Cal. 2d 11 · California Supreme Court · Dec 13, 1960

(People v. Brown, 49 Cal.2d 577, 590-594 [ 320 P.2d 5 ].) … (People v. Brown, 49 Cal.2d 577, 591 [ 320 P.2d 5 ]; see People v. Roberts, 40 Cal.2d 483, 491 [ 254 P.2d 501 ]; People v. Clemett, 208 Cal. 142, 144 [ 280 P. 681 ]; People v.

Lawrence v. I. N. Parlier Estate Co.

15 Cal. 2d 220 · California Supreme Court · Mar 21, 1940

(Whitehead v. Sweet, 126 Cal. 67 [ 58 Pac. 376 ] ; Smith v. California Thorn Cordage, Inc., 129 Cal. App. 93, 102 [ 18 Pac. (2d) 393 ]; Peterson v. Taggart, 1 Cal. App. (2d) 468 [ 36 Pac. (2d) 1086 ].) … As expressed in Wickersham v.

In Re Jones

208 Cal. 240 · California Supreme Court · Sep 26, 1929

As to the facts set forth in the second transaction, the Committee found that: “on May 11th, 1928, in the Superior Court ... in the case of People . . . v. . . . … It is therefore ordered that the action and recommendation of the Board of Governors in this matter be approved and that the petitioner herein, the said Edward V.

Apple v. Zemansky

166 Cal. 83 · California Supreme Court · Aug 23, 1913

On November 15,1910, there were submitted by the board of supervisors of said city and county to the people for ratification thirty-eight proposed amendments to the charter, some of which were submitted by the board of supervisors … Amendment No. 7 was one proposed by the requisite number of electors, and submitted in pursuance of a petition presented to the board of supervisors, requiring its submission.

Griset v. Fair Political Practices Commission

107 Cal. Rptr. 2d 149 · California Supreme Court · May 24, 2001

(See Leone v. Medical Board (2000) 22 Cal.4th 660, 666 [ 94 Cal.Rptr.2d 61 , 995 P.2d 191 ]; Powers v. City of Richmond (1995) 10 Cal.4th 85, 92-93 [ 40 Cal.Rptr.2d 839 , 893 P.2d 1160 ] (plur. opn. of Kennard, J.).) … (See California Teachers Assn. v. Board of Education (1980) 109 Cal.App.3d 738, 751 [ 167 Cal.Rptr. 429 ]; Elmore v. Imperial Irrigation Dist. (1984) 159 Cal.App.3d 185, 190-191 [ 205 Cal.Rptr. 433 ]; Bullock v.

Tierney & Lawford, Inc. v. Wilshire Cafe Co.

209 Cal. 605 · California Supreme Court · Jun 18, 1930

five persons, the owners of all issued capital stock, constituted the board of directors. … (Winona Wagon Co. v. Bull, 108 Cal. 1 [ 40 Pac. 1077 ] ; Ellison v. Henion, 183 Cal. 171 [11 A. L. R. 444, 190 Pac. 793 ]; London & S. F. Bank v. Parrott, 125 Cal. 472 [ 73 Am. St. Rep. 64 , 58 Pac. 164 ]; Clark v.

Rojas v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

130 Cal. Rptr. 2d 653 · California Supreme Court · Jan 15, 2003

130 Cal.Rptr.2d 653 (2003) 63 P.3d 212 Genoveva ROJAS et al., Petitioners, v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, Respondent; Julie Coffin et al., Real Parties in Interest. No. S111585. … Petitions for review GRANTED. *654 GEORGE, C.J., and KENNARD, BAXTER, WERDEGAR, CHIN, BROWN, and MORENO, JJ., concur.

Schullman v. State Bar

59 Cal. 2d 590 · California Supreme Court · May 21, 1963

(Rock v. State Bar (1962) 57 Cal.2d 639, 642 [1,2] [ 21 Cal.Rptr. 572 , 371 P.2d 308 ]; Best v. State Bar (1962) 57 Cal.2d 633, 635 [1, 2] [ 21 Cal.Rptr. 589 , 371 P.2d 325 ] ; Black v. … (Magee v. State Bar (1962), supra, at p. 429 [3].)

People ex rel. Wicks v. Jones

20 Cal. 50 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1862

(Magee v. The Board of Supervisors of the county of Calaveras, 10 Cal. 376 .) If he has not the right and the real title, he holds unlawfully. *54 ■2d. … In the case of Smith v.

People v. Motton

39 Cal. 3d 596 · California Supreme Court · Aug 19, 1985

As Justice Marshall observed in Peters v. … Justice Tobriner in his dissent in Rubio v.

County of Los Angeles v. Frisbie

19 Cal. 2d 634 · California Supreme Court · Feb 28, 1942

(State v. Conkling, 19 Cal. 501, 512 .) … (Uhl v. Badaracco, 199 Cal. 270, 284 [ 248 Pac. 917 ].) “Therefore,” as is stated in People v. Merrill, 24 Cal.

Washington v. Washington

47 Cal. 2d 249 · California Supreme Court · Oct 30, 1956

(Brown v. Brown, 170 Cal. 1 [ 147 P. 1168 ].) Such a cause of action was held to be community property in Zaragosa v.

Chapman v. Morris

28 Cal. 393 · California Supreme Court · Jul 15, 1865

The principles announced in Blanding v. Burr, 13 Cal. 349 ; Contra Costa County v. Board of Supervisors of Alameda County, 26 Cal. 649 ; and People v. Pacheco, 27 Cal. 176 , are applicable to this case.

Harvey v. Fresno Traction Co.

175 Cal. 489 · California Supreme Court · Jun 18, 1917

(Ja cquette v. Capital Traction Co., 34 App. D. C. 41, [25 L. R A. (N. S.) 407].) … (Berry v. St. Louis Transit Co., 211 Mo. 88 , [ 109 S. W. 661 ]; Burger v. Omaha & C. B. St. R. R. Co., 139 Iowa, 645 , [ 130 Am. St. Rep. 343 , 117 N. W. 35 ].)