Case law

People v. Myring

144 Cal. 351 · California Supreme Court · Aug 6, 1904

(Schwerdtle v. County of Placer, 108 Cal. 589 ; Hartley v. Vermillion, 141 Cal. 340 .) … The board of supervisors allowed him to have it.”

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.

Geffen v. State Bar

14 Cal. 3d 843 · California Supreme Court · Jul 29, 1975

Younger v. … (Lewis v. State Bar, 9 Cal.3d 704, 712-713 [ 108 Cal.Rptr. 821 , 511 P.2d 1173 ]; Ridley v.

Ex Parte Beck

162 Cal. 701 · California Supreme Court · May 27, 1912

Board of Law Library Trusteees v. Board of Supervisors, 99 Cal. 571 , [ 34 Pac. 244 ], is still more in point. … E. 422 ] ; Garrett v. Mayor, 47 La. Ann. 618 , [ 17 South. 238 ]; Feek v. Township Board. 82 Mich. 393 , [10 L. R. A. 69, 47 N. W. 37 ]; State v. Johnson, 86 Minn. 121 , [ 90 N. W. 161 ]; Hoover v. Thomas, 35 Tex. Civ.

City of Eureka v. McKay & Co.

123 Cal. 666 · California Supreme Court · Mar 6, 1899

The case upon this proposition is like those of People v. Kruger, 19 Cal. 411 , and People v. … (Fresno v. Fresno C. & I. Co., 98 Cal. 179 ; Los Angeles v. Cohn, 101 Cal. 373 .)

In Re Abbott

19 Cal. 3d 249 · California Supreme Court · Mar 24, 1977

{Segretti v. State Bar (1976) 15 Cal.3d 878, 888 [ 126 Cal.Rptr. 793 , 544 P.2d 929 ].) … {Herrscher v. State Bar of California, 4 Cal.2d 399 ....)’”’ {Resner v. State Bar, 53 Cal.2d 605 , 614 .. . .)” {In re Cohen, supra, 11 Cal.3d 935, 943 .)

City St. Improvement Co. v. Kroh

158 Cal. 308 · California Supreme Court · Sep 2, 1910

W. 7 ]; Andrews v. Board, 7 Idaho, 457 , [ 63 Pac. 592]; Gage v. New York, 110 App. Div. 403 , [ 97 N. Y. Supp. 157 ]; McBrian v. Grand Rapids, 56 Mich. 99 , [ 22 N. W. 206 ], 11 Cyc. 481; 20 Am. & Eng. … E. 885 ], In Inge v. Board, 135 Ala. 202 , [ 93 Am. St. Rep. 20 , 33 South. 678 ], the work had not been performed and the suit was instituted by taxpayers to restrain its performance.

People v. Ketchel

59 Cal. 2d 503 · California Supreme Court · May 7, 1963

After Officer Brown completed his testimony, appellants’ counsel heard the recording a second time. None sought to recall Brown for further cross-examination. (People v. Dabb (1948) 32 Cal.2d 491, 498 [ 197 P.2d 1 ].) … (People v. Dupee (1957) 151 Cal.App.2d 364, 366 [ 311 P.2d 568 ]; People v. Brown (1955) 45 Cal.2d 640 [ 290 P.2d 528 ].)

In re the Estate of Beech

63 Cal. 458 · California Supreme Court · Jun 4, 1883

Foster’s Case, 7 Rep. 87; Bowen v. Lease, 5 Hill, *460 221 ; Canal Co. v. R. R. Co. 4 Gill & J. 1; Street v. Commonwealth, 6 Watts & S. 209 ; Commonwealth v. Easton Bank, 10 Barr. 322; Brown v. … St. 37; Williams v. Potter, 2 Barb. 316 ; Commonwealth v. Herrick, 6 Cush. 465.)

Philpott v. Superior Court

1 Cal. 2d 512 · California Supreme Court · Oct 1, 1934

Board of Education v. Town of Henderson, 126 N. C. 689 [ 36 S. E. 158 ], decided this term. … (Gaines v. Miller, 111 U. S. 395 [4 Sup. Ct. 426, 28 L. Ed. 466 ] ; Pauly v. Pauly, 107 Cal. 8 [ 40 Pac. 29 , 48 Am. St. Rep. 98 ]; Brown v. Woodward, 75 Conn. 254 [ 53 Atl. 112 ] ; Wilson v.

Fox v. Hale & Norcross Silver Mining Co.

108 Cal. 369 · California Supreme Court · Aug 3, 1895

(Cashman v. Root, 89 Cal. 373 ; 23 Am. St. Rep. 482 ; Wetmore v. Barrett, 103 Cal. 246 ; Sheehy v. Shinn, 103 Cal. 325 ; Baldwin v. Zadig, 104 Cal. 594 ; Kullman v. Simmens, 104 Cal. 595 .) … Paul Distilling Co. v.

Williams v. McDonald

58 Cal. 527 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1881

He further testified that when the resolution in question was adopted by the Board he filled in the date and placed it in the proper place, and caused it to be published in the proper papers. … (Deady v. Townsend, 57 Cal. 298 .) 3. The diagram was defective, containing no sufficient description of the property. This point is not well taken under the decision in Whiting v. Quackenbush, 54 Cal. 306 .

Jones v. California Growers & Shippers, Inc.

182 Cal. 777 · California Supreme Court · May 18, 1920

Appellant attempts to distinguish this case from that of Christensen v. … (Hamilton v. Klinke (Cal. App.), [ 183 Pac. 674 ], See, also, Blackwood v. Cutting Packing Co., 76 Cal. 212 , [ 9 Am. St. Rep. 199 , 18 Pac. 248 ]; Brown v. Anderson, 77 Cal. 236 , [ 19 Pac. 487 ]; Wong Poo v.

Falk v. Reis

88 Cal. 514 · California Supreme Court · Mar 31, 1891

(Schmitt v. Dunn, 55 Cal. 651 .) … In Falk v.

Hirschman v. County of Los Angeles

39 Cal. 2d 698 · California Supreme Court · Oct 17, 1952

Tlie oath and affidavits as originally adopted in August, 1947, were upheld by the District Court of Appeal in Steiner v. Darby, 88 Cal.App.2d 481 [ 199 P.2d 429 ], On December 5, 1949, under the title of Parker v. … Fraser v. Regents of University of California, post, p. 717 [ 249 P.2d 283 ].)

Hayward v. Manzer

70 Cal. 476 · California Supreme Court · Aug 27, 1886

(Tate v. City of Sacramento, 50 Cal. 242 .) … (People v. Williams, 64 Cal. 498 -502; San Francisco v. Canavan, 42 Cal. 542 -548; San Francisco v. Calderwood, 31 Cal. 589 ; Washburn on Easements, 132; Harding v. Jasper, 14 Cal. 647 ; Child v. Chappel, 9 N. Y. 257 .)

Ex parte Lacey

108 Cal. 326 · California Supreme Court · Aug 1, 1895

And in the case of Johnson v. … of the .determination by the board of the matter of fact involved • is not open to inquiry here.”

Banks v. Yolo County

104 Cal. 258 · California Supreme Court · Sep 29, 1894

(See Dillon v. Saloude, 68 Cal. 270 , 271.) Respondent’s cause of action is not barred by the clauses of the statute of limitations invoked by appellant. … Proc., sec. 338; Higby v. Calaveras County, 18 Cal. 178 .) There are no other points necessary to be noticed. The judgment is affirmed.

Curtis v. Holee

184 Cal. 726 · California Supreme Court · Jan 26, 1921

(Chaffee v. Browne, 109 Cal. 211 , 218, [ 41 Pac. 1028 ]; State etc. Co. v. Cochran, 130 Cal. 245, 251 , [ 62 Pac. 466, 600 ]; Concannon v. Smith, 134 Cal. 14 , [ 66 Pac. 40 ].) … (McCormick v. Brown, 36 Cal. 180 , [ 95 Am. Dec. 170 ]; Daniels v. Johnson, 129 Cal. 415 , [ 79 Am. St. Rep. 123 , 61 Pac. 1107 ]; Rodgers v.