Case law

In Re Sanders

87 Cal. Rptr. 2d 899 · California Supreme Court · Aug 26, 1999

People v. Mendez (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1084, 1105 [ 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 301 , 969 P.2d 146 ] (conc. opn. of Brown, J.) [“ ‘ “It’s déjá vu all over again.” ’ ”].) … (See also People v. Mendez, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 1105 (conc. opn. of Brown, J.) [“Thousands upon thousands of more words, and still no closer to a workable standard.”].)

Roseberry v. Edward F. Niehaus & Co.

166 Cal. 481 · California Supreme Court · Dec 6, 1913

S.) 896, 122 Pac. 962 ], Davis v. California Street Cable Ry. Co., 105 Cal. 131 , [ 38 Pac. 647 ]; Brett v. Frank & Co., 153 Cal. 274 , [ 94 Pac. 1051 ], s. c. 162 Cal. 736 , [ 124 Pac. 437 ], and McGraw v. Friend etc. … (Giraudi v. Elec. Imp. Co., 107 Cal. 125 , [ 48 Am. St. Rep. 114 , 28 L. R. A. (N. S.) 596, 40 Pac. 108 ]; Jacobson v. Oak *484 land Meat etc. Co., 161 Cal. 430 , [Ann. Cas. 1913B, 1194, 119 Pac. 653 ].)

People v. Hernandez

45 Cal. 4th 295 · California Supreme Court · Dec 11, 2008

(See U.S. v. Wilson (4th Cir. 2000) 205 F.3d 720 ; Bius v. State (2002) 254 Ga.App. 634 [ 563 S.E.2d 527 ]; State v. Childs (1993) 242 Neb. 426 [ 495 N.W.2d 475 ]; State v. … Asked to describe it further, he said it was a “brown Toyota pickup truck.”

County of Los Angeles v. Eikenberry

131 Cal. 461 · California Supreme Court · Jan 30, 1901

It is next urged that the ordinance is void for the reason that it attempts to license the sales and not the business, and we are referred to the case of Merced County v. Helm, 102 Cal. 159 . … It has been said that the rule in Merced County v. Helm, supra, went to the extreme verge of strictness, and the court has been disposed to limit rather than extend its application.

Golden State Theatre & Realty Corp. v. Johnson

21 Cal. 2d 493 · California Supreme Court · Jan 22, 1943

Defendant lays great stress on the case of Union Oil Associates v. … (Von Baumbach v. Sargent Land Co., 242 U.S. 503 [ 37 S.Ct. 201 , 61 L.Ed. 460 ] ; McCoach v. Minehill & Schuylkill Haven R. R. Co., 228 U.S. 295 [ 33 S.Ct. 419 , 57 L.Ed. 842 ]; United States v.

Horacek v. Smith

33 Cal. 2d 186 · California Supreme Court · Dec 7, 1948

(DeYoung v. DeYoung, 27 Cal.2d 521, 526 [ 165 P.2d 457 ].) … In Hobart v.

Hernandez v. County of Los Angeles

42 Cal. 3d 1020 · California Supreme Court · Dec 22, 1986

Whitfield v. … Section 911.6 provides in full: “(a) The board shall grant or deny the application within 45 days after it is presented to the board.

In Re Zhizhuzza

147 Cal. 328 · California Supreme Court · Jul 13, 1905

family than upon all other hotels and boarding-houses. … (California Reduction Co. v. Sanitary Reduction Works, 126 Fed. 29 .) 6.

Cameron v. State of California

7 Cal. 3d 318 · California Supreme Court · Jun 7, 1972

(Baldwin v. … See Stanford v.

People v. Ashburner

55 Cal. 517 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1880

V. … McDonogh v.

Stowell v. Rialto Irrigation District

202 Cal. 193 · California Supreme Court · Sep 26, 1927

Dist. v. … (Ham v. Grapeland District, 172 Cal. 611, 618 [ 158 Pac. 207 ].)

City of Morgan Hill v. Bushey

236 Cal. Rptr. 3d 835 · California Supreme Court · Aug 23, 2018

(See Simpson v. … Brown for League of California Cities as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Respondent. Orry B. Korb and James R.

Whitley v. Islais Creek Reclamation District

216 Cal. 599 · California Supreme Court · Oct 28, 1932

By virtue also of the prior decision of this court in Islais Creek Reclamation Dist. v. All Persons, supra, he is estopped to question the validity of the creation of the district, or the statutory powers of the board. … (Meyer v. Reclamation Dist. No. 17, supra; Spurrier v. Reclamation Dist. No. 17, 172 Cal. 157 [ 155 Pac. 840 ].)

Frink v. Prod

31 Cal. 3d 166 · California Supreme Court · Apr 8, 1982

(See Savelli v. Board of Medical Examiners (1964) 229 Cal.App.2d 124, 129, 131-132 [ 40 Cal.Rptr. 171 ].) … (Yakov v. Board of Medical Examiners, supra, 68 Cal.2d 67, 75 [ 64 Cal.Rptr. 785 , 435 P.2d 553 ].)

County of Kings v. County of Tulare

119 Cal. 509 · California Supreme Court · Jan 4, 1898

(American Emigrant Co. v. Adams County, 100 U. S. 61 ; Mills Co. v. Railroad Co., 107 U. S. 557 ; Hagar v. Reclamation Dist, 111 U. S. 701 ; United States v. Louisiana, 127 U. S. 182 .) … (Kimball v. Reclamation Fund Com., 45 Cal. 344 .)

In Re Wong Wing

167 Cal. 109 · California Supreme Court · Jan 16, 1914

. *110 Wong Wing was charged with and convicted of misdemeanor consisting of a violation of the provisions of section 1 of Ordinance No. 144 (new series) of the board of supervisors of said city and county, and of section … (Ex parte Moynier, 65 Cal. 34 , [ 2 Pac. 728 ] ; Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U. S. 29 , [ 28 L. Ed. 923 , 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 357] ; *111 Soon Hing v. Crowley, 113 U. S. 707 , [28 L Ed. 1145, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 730].)

Oakland Bank of Sav. v. Sullivan

107 Cal. 428 · California Supreme Court · Jun 4, 1895

None of such averments were denied in appellant’s answer; they were material allegations (Himmelman v. … Such cases are subject to the general rules of procedure prescribed by the code (Pacific Paving Co. v.

Polydoros v. TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM

79 Cal. Rptr. 2d 206 · California Supreme Court · Oct 14, 1998

79 Cal.Rptr.2d 206 (1998) 965 P.2d 724 Michael POLYDOROS, Appellant, v. TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM CORP. et al., Respondents. No. S064868. Supreme Court of California. October 14, 1998. … GEORGE, C.J., and MOSK, BAXTER, WERDEGAR, CHIN and BROWN, JJ, concur.

In Re Sichofsky

201 Cal. 360 · California Supreme Court · Jun 10, 1927

The petitioner is still confined under said order of said board and it is from such confinement that he seeks release by this writ. … The appellate court ruled against this contention (People v. Sichofsky, 58 Cal. App. 257, 261 [ 208 Pac. 340 ]); and this court denied a petition for rehearing based upon that ground.

Thorman v. International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees

49 Cal. 2d 629 · California Supreme Court · Jan 16, 1958

Philadelphia Iron Works, 211 F.2d 937, 943 ; National Labor Relations Board v. George D. Auchter Co., 209 F.2d 273, 276-277 ; National Labor Relations Board v. … Bell Aircraft Corp., 206 F.2d 235, 236 ; National Labor Relations Board v. International Union, 194 F.2d 698, 700 ; National Labor Relations Board v. Kingston Cake Co., 191 F.2d 563, 566 ; Union Starch & Refining Co. v.