Case law

Diepenbrock v. Luiz

159 Cal. 716 · California Supreme Court · May 2, 1911

Brown to defendant, is to recover the rental which under the terms of said lease became due on November 15, 1906. … “Respondent, on the contrary, quotes from Rich v. Atwater, 16 Conn, 409; Robertson v. Caw, 3 Barb. (N. Y.) 410, and De Vitt v. Kaufman Co., 27 Tex. Civ. App. 332 , [ 66 S.

Goodale v. Fifteenth District Court

56 Cal. 26 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1880

In Evelyn v. Evelyn, 2 Dickens’ Ch. Rep. 800, a receiver was appointed to an undivided estate. In Street v. Anderton, 4 Brown’s Ch. … In Milbank v. Revertt, 2 Mer. 405, it was held that the Court refuses to grant a receiver of estates, as between tenants in common, except in gross cases of exclusive possession. (See also note to page 315, Brown’s Ch.

Meyer v. Riley

2 Cal. 2d 39 · California Supreme Court · Nov 28, 1934

(Humbert v. Dunn, 84 Cal. 57 [ 24 Pac. 111 ].) … In a similar situation this court said in Humbert v.

People v. Superior Court of Orange Cnty.

241 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1 · California Supreme Court · Dec 13, 2018

Brown, Assistant Public Defenders, for Real Party in Interest. … Brown Assistant Public Defender 14 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92701-4029 (714) 834-2144

People v. Easley

34 Cal. 3d 858 · California Supreme Court · Nov 7, 1983

The affidavit stated that the affiant contacted Brown and asked him for the cousin’s name. Brown said the cousin was Easley. … doubt on Brown’s credibility.

Marks v. Weinstock, Lubin & Co.

121 Cal. 53 · California Supreme Court · May 31, 1898

And it is also said: “And defendant further alleges that” in June, 1894, the board of trustees of the city of Sacramento adopted an ordinance, a copy of which is set out, which authorized and justified its action. … (Patterson v. Board of Supervisors, 50 Cal. 344 ; Parrott v. Floyd, 54 Cal. 534 ; White v. Nunan, 60 Cal. 406 ; Grannis v. Lorden, 103 Cal. 472 .)

Doeg v. Cook

126 Cal. 213 · California Supreme Court · Sep 28, 1899

The defendants are the town marshal, who is also ex officio street commissioner, his bondsmen, and the individuals composing the board of town trustees. … San Joaquin Co., 21 Cal. 426; Winbigler v. Los Angeles, 45 Cal. 36 ; Chope v. Eureka, 78 Cal. 588 ; 12 Am. St. Rep. 113 ; Arnold v.

People v. Kristy

4 Cal. 2d 504 · California Supreme Court · Oct 24, 1935

In People v. … (People v. Douglass, 100 Cal. 1 [ 34 Pac. 490 ]; People v. Bealoba, 17 Cal. 389, 399 ; People v. Holmes, 118 Cal. 444, 449 [ 50 Pac. 675 ].)

Gantner v. Gantner

38 Cal. 2d 691 · California Supreme Court · Mar 25, 1952

In Gantner v. … In the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, this court clearly has the power in custody matters “to protect the subject matter of the order or judgment appealed from during the pendency of such appeal. ’' (In re Browning

California Southern Hotel Co. v. Russell

88 Cal. 277 · California Supreme Court · Mar 9, 1891

The board of directors of the corporation made calls for the payment of the full amount of the subscriptions, in installments of twenty per cent each. … Co. v. Schwartz, 53 Cal. 106 ; see also Am. Law Reg. 7, and cases cited.) But it very clearly appears that the condition was not complied *281 with, for two reasons: 1.

People v. Anderson

64 Cal. 2d 633 · California Supreme Court · May 24, 1966

(People v. Ketchel, 59 Cal.2d 503, 523 [10] [ 30 Cal.Rptr. 538 , 381 P.2d 394 ] ; People v. Kendrick, 56 Cal.2d 71, 90 [18] [ 14 Cal.Rptr. 13 , 363 P.2d 13 ] ; People v. … People v. Chavez, 37 Cal.2d 656 . 668 [6] [ 234 P.2d 632 ] ; People v. Chapman. 207 Cal.App.2d 557, 578 [22] [ 24 Cal.Rptr. 568 ] ; People v.

Skinner v. Hall

69 Cal. 195 · California Supreme Court · Mar 30, 1886

for her board and that of the child. … (Ackley v. Chamberlain, 16 Cal. 181 ; Phelps v. Rooney, 9 Wis. 70 .)

In Re Jones

5 Cal. 3d 390 · California Supreme Court · Aug 5, 1971

(Feinstein v. State Bar, supra, 39 Cal.2d p. 547.) … The board struck this finding and made a general finding that “The record reflects no mitigating circumstances.” 6 Bordner v.

Western States Life Ins. Co. v. Lockwood

166 Cal. 185 · California Supreme Court · Sep 13, 1913

Plaintiff and its board of directors never knew anything about the transaction between Mr. … In Davis v. Browning, 91 Cal. 603 , [ 27 Pac. 937 ], it was held that a similar affidavit made by an executrix on behalf of an estate of a deceased person was sufficient.

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.

Mosesian v. State Bar

8 Cal. 3d 60 · California Supreme Court · Sep 22, 1972

The burden is upon one seeking a review of a recommendation of the disciplinary board to show that its findings are not supported by the evidence or that its recommendation is erroneous or unlawful. (Walter v. … (Reznik v. State Bar, supra, 1 Cal.3d 198, 203-204 (4, 6); Scofield v. State Bar, 62 Cal.2d 624, 628 [3] [ 43 Cal.Rptr. 825 , 401 P.2d 217 ]; McKinney v.

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.

In Re Bloom

19 Cal. 3d 175 · California Supreme Court · Mar 18, 1977

{Segretti v. State Bar (1976) 15 Cal.3d 878, 888 [ 126 Cal.Rptr. 793 , 544 P.2d 929 ]; *180 Bradpiece v. State Bar (1974) 10 Cal.3d 742, 748 [ 111 Cal.Rptr. 905 , 518 P.2d 337 ].) … (See Barreiro v. State Bar (1970) 2 Cal.3d 912, 925 [ 88 Cal.Rptr. 192 , 471 P.2d 992 ]; Coviello v. State Bar (1955) 45 Cal.2d 57, 65 [ 286 P.2d 357 ].)

Roehm v. County of Orange

32 Cal. 2d 280 · California Supreme Court · Jul 30, 1948

(San Jose Gas Co. v. January, 57 Cal. 614 ; Spring Valley Water Works v. Schottler, 62 Cal. 69 ; Stockton Gas & Electric Co. v. … (See Pacific Co. v. Board of Supervisors, 8 Cal.2d 611 [ 67 P.2d 335 ]; Weber v. County of Santa Barbara, 15 Cal.2d 82, 85 [ 98 P.2d 492 ].)

Fairfield Gardens, Inc. v. County of Solano

45 Cal. 2d 575 · California Supreme Court · Nov 25, 1955

decision of the board. … (Merrill v. Hurlburt, 63 Cal. 494, 497 ; see Miller & Lux v. Richardson, 182 Cal. 115, 128 [ 187 P. 411 ]; H. & W. Pierce, Inc. v. County of Santa Barbara, 40 Cal.App. 302, 306 [ 180 P. 641 ] and cases there cited.)