Case law

Richter v. Lightston

161 Cal. 260 · California Supreme Court · Oct 26, 1911

For the same reasons no more force attaches to the permit of the board of health to conduct a hotel, which amounts to nothing other than a declaration that the premises are sufficiently sanitary to justify the issuance of … It is finally urged that the ordinance is in conflict with the fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States and Barber v. Connolly, 113 U. S. 27 , [5 Sup. Ct. 357, 28 L.

Ward v. Flood

48 Cal. 36 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1874

Flood as Principal thereof, appointed thereto byj and holding office as such under the said Board of Education. “ On or about the 1st day of July, A. … A question similar to this came before the Supreme Judicial Court of the State of Massachusetts in 1849 (Roberts v.

People v. Billa

6 Cal. Rptr. 3d 425 · California Supreme Court · Nov 24, 2003

J., Kennard, J., Baxter, J., Werdegar, J., Brown, J., and Moreno, J., concurred. 6 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 Although the prosecution proceeded on a felony-murder theory with arson the underlying … As in Pulido , we need not reconcile or choose between these lines because the result here would be the same under either. 6 We note that Chief Justice George was outside California (attending a board meeting of the national

Shupe v. Rodolf

185 Cal. 371 · California Supreme Court · Mar 28, 1921

As was said in Karr v. … the westerly way, so that the direction of the sign-board was without authority, so to speak.

Duncan v. Ramish

142 Cal. 686 · California Supreme Court · Apr 4, 1904

(Stats. 1891 196; French v. Barber Asphalt Pav. Co., 181 U. S. 324 ; Spencer v. Merchant, 125 U. S. 345 ; Brown v. Drain. 187 U. S. 635 .) In support of their position the appellants rely on the case of Norwood v. … In Brown v.

People v. Carrillo

70 Cal. 643 · California Supreme Court · Sep 18, 1886

(People v. Brown, 56 Cal. 405 ; People v. Kerrick, 52 Cal. 446 ; People y. Padillia, 42 Cal. 585 ; People v. Phipps, 39 Cal. 326 .) … (People v. Kersey, 53 Cal. 575 , and cases there cited.) Judgment and order reversed, and cause remanded for a new trial. Boss, J., and Myrick, J., concurred.

Roth v. Moeller

185 Cal. 415 · California Supreme Court · Mar 29, 1921

Code, sec. 2356; Flanagan v. Brown, 70 Cal. 254 , [ 11 Pac. 706 ]; Parke v. Frank, 75 Cal. 364 , [ 17 Pac. 427 ]; Blumenthal v. Goodall, 89 Cal. 251 , [ 26 Pac. 906 ]; 1 Cal. … Goodall, supra), and comes within the decision in Brown v. Pforr, 38 Cal. 550 .

People v. Reynoza

California Supreme Court · Apr 22, 2024

(See Reynoza, supra, 75 Cal.App.5th at pp. 187–188, citing People v. Hallock (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 595 (Hallock), Fernandez, supra, 106 Cal.App.4th 943, and People v. Brown (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 1074 (Brown).) … (Brown, supra, 6 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1080– 1082.) The defendant in Brown was convicted of violating 39  PEOPLE v.

Aday v. Superior Court

55 Cal. 2d 789 · California Supreme Court · May 11, 1961

“Minutes of the board of directors.” 13. “Stockholder records.” 14. “Corporate records” of the corporate petitioners. 15. … Brown, 354 U.S. 436, 440 [ 77 S.Ct. 1325 , 1 L.Ed.2d 1469 ]; see Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 571-572 [ 62 S.Ct. 766 , 86 L.Ed. 1031 ]; Near v.

Hemme v. Hays

55 Cal. 337 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1880

(Nicholas v. Jones, 6 How. Pr. 355 ; Hull v. Smith, 8 id. 149; S. C. 1 Duer, 649 ; Brown v. Jenison, 3 Sand. 732 ; Livingston v. Hammer, 7 Bosw. 674 .) … (Fetch v. Beaudry, 40 Cal. 439 ; Corwin v. Patch, 4 id. 204; Gay v. Winter, 34 id. 153 ; Fitzqibbon v. Calvert, 39 id. 261.) Judgment affirmed. Mtriok, J., concurred.

Glascock v. Ashman

52 Cal. 493 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1877

(People v. Buster, 11 Cal. 205 ; People v. Breyfogle, 7 Cal. 504 ; Schloss v. White, 16 Cal. 65 . Sec. 4179 is a ¡Denal law. … Brown & Daggett, and Wm. W. Goss, for Respondent, cited secs. 4187, 4179, 4180 of the Political Code.

Mitchell v. Colgan

122 Cal. 296 · California Supreme Court · Oct 18, 1898

reference to the board of examiners. … Cochran v. Los Angeles Countly, 117 Cal. 534 , was an action to recover for the care and keeping of children committed from defendant county.

Marine Forests Society v. California Coastal Commission

132 Cal. Rptr. 2d 527 · California Supreme Court · Apr 9, 2003

132 Cal.Rptr.2d 527 (2003) 65 P.3d 1285 MARINE FORESTS SOCIETY et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION et al., Defendants and Appellants. No. S113466. Supreme Court of California. En Banc. … GEORGE, C.J, and KENNARD, BAXTER, WERDEGAR, CHIN, BROWN and MORENO, JJ, concur.

In re Brown

62 Cal. 2d 902 · California Supreme Court · Mar 5, 1965

In People v. Brown, ante, p. 901 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 837 , 399 P.2d 373 ], filed this day/ it is concluded that petitioner is entitled to appeal. No other basis appears for issuance of the writ.

Stockton Combined Harvester & Agricultural Works v. Glens Falls Insurance Co.

121 Cal. 167 · California Supreme Court · Jun 10, 1898

(Citing Bell v. Brown, 22 Cal. 671.) There Is no merit in this point. … (Citing Soule v.

McIntosh v. State Bar

211 Cal. 261 · California Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1930

(State Bar v. Superior Court, 207 Cal. 323 [ 278 Pac. 432 ]; In re Cate, 207 Cal. 443 [ 279 Pac. 131 ] ; Matter of Shattuck, 208 Cal. 6 [ 278 Pac. 998 ] ; Matter of Richardson, 209 Cal. 492 [ 288 Pac. 669 ].) … The remaining contention is whether the evidence is sufficient to support the findings and the conclusions reached by the Board of Governors.

Torres v. Automobile Club of Southern California

15 Cal. 4th 771 · California Supreme Court · Jun 2, 1997

Cruz (1996) 13 Cal.4th 764, 774-775 [ 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 117 , 919 P.2d 731 ]; see City of Huntington Beach v. Board of Administration (1992) 4 Cal.4th 462, 468 [ 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 514 , 841 P.2d 1034 ].) … J., Mosk, J., Kennard, J., Werdegar, J., Chin, J., and Brown, J., concurred.

Blair v. Brownstone Oil & Refining Co.

168 Cal. 632 · California Supreme Court · Oct 13, 1914

The act of the secretary was wholly without any authority on the part of the board of directors of the corporation. … (Fraser v. Sheldon, 164 Cal. 168 , [ 128 Pac. 33 ].)

Bishop v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County

87 Cal. 226 · California Supreme Court · Dec 20, 1890

Upon this proposition, the case of State v. Valliant, 13 S. W. Rep. 398 , seems to be much in point. … In the one case of Mahoney v.

Pioneer Express Co. v. Riley

208 Cal. 677 · California Supreme Court · Jan 18, 1930

The petitioner protested before said board against its increase in taxes. … (G ould v. Gould, 245 U. S. 151 [ 62 L. Ed. 211 , 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 53]; Estate of Potter, 188 Cal. 55, 64 [ 204 Pac. 826 ].)