Case law

Badillo v. Superior Court

46 Cal. 2d 269 · California Supreme Court · Feb 24, 1956

It was so declared in People v. Brown, 45 Cal.2d 640 , at page 643 [ 290 P.2d 528 ], where it was held that "the legality of an arrest is not necessarily determinative of the lawfulness of a search incident thereto." … I had doubt concerning the validity of any such distinction, and it was for this reason that I voted for a rehearing in People v. Brown, supra, 45 Cal.2d 640 , and People v. Simon, 45 Cal.2d 645 [ 290 P.2d 531 ].

Williams v. Savings & Loan Society

97 Cal. 122 · California Supreme Court · Jan 5, 1893

(United States v. Martin, 94 U. S. 403 .) One of the defenses to the action is, that the work for which the assessment was issued had not been performed according to the terms of the contract. … It is conceded by counsel that the resolution of the board does indicate that Pacific Avenue was to be formed from some portion, at least, of Pacific Street. And it was held in Brady v.

Witter v. Bank of Milpitas

204 Cal. 570 · California Supreme Court · Jul 18, 1928

(Kennedy v. Dunn, 58 Cal. 339, 340 ; Balfour-Guthrie Co. v. Woodworth, 124 Cal. 169, 171, 173 [ 56 Pac. 891 ]; Sargent v Shumaker, 193 Cal. 122, 130 [ 223 Pac. 464 ]; Baldwin v. … Brown, 193 Cal. 345, 351, 352 [ 224 Pac. 462 ]; 25 Cal. Jur. 81, sec. 65.) We are of the opinion that this rule is applicable to the present case.

In Re Petersen

51 Cal. 2d 177 · California Supreme Court · Oct 31, 1958

In Franchise Tax Board v. … Co. v. State Board of Equalization, 239 U.S. 441 [ 36 S.Ct. 141 , 60 L.Ed. 372 ]; Field & Co. v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649 [ 12 S.Ct. 495 , 36 L.Ed. 294 ].)"

City of Los Angeles v. Rancho Homes, Inc.

40 Cal. 2d 764 · California Supreme Court · Apr 28, 1953

(Coca-Cola Co. v. State Board of Equalization, 25 Cal.2d 918, 921 [ 156 P.2d 1 ]; Holloway v. Purcell, 35 Cal.2d 220, 226 [ 217 P.2d 665 ].) … (Bermite Powder Co. v. Franchise Tax Board, 38 Cal.2d 700, 704 [ 242 P.2d 9 ]; Coca-Cola Co. v. State Board of Equalization, supra, p. 923.)

Brady v. Burke

90 Cal. 1 · California Supreme Court · Jun 29, 1891

(Shay v. McNamara, 54 Cal. 169 ; Chester v. Bakersfield T. H. Ass’n, 64 Cal. 42 ; Horn v. Jones, 28 Cal. 203 ; Campbell v. Hall, 16 N. Y. 575 .) … (Beveridge v. Livingstone, 54 Cal. 54 ; Raisch v. San Francisco, 80 Cal. 1 ; Fanning v. Schammel, 68 Cal. 428 .)

Palo Verde Irrigation District v. Seeley

198 Cal. 477 · California Supreme Court · Apr 22, 1926

In the case of Barber v. … V.

W. W. Montague & Co. v. English

119 Cal. 225 · California Supreme Court · Dec 11, 1897

Justice Boss, in San Francisco Gas Co. v. … This construction has been approved in terms in Smith v. Broderick, 107 Cal. 648 .

Helvey v. Sax

38 Cal. 2d 21 · California Supreme Court · Nov 13, 1951

(People v. Chambers, 37 Cal.2d 552, 555 [ 233 P.2d 557 ]; State Land Settlement Board v. Henderson, 197 Cal. 470, 479 [ 241 P. 560 ]; San Pedro etc. R. R. Co. v. Los Angeles, 180 Cal. 18, 22 [ 179 P. 393 ].) … Code, § 32200 et seq.; see Hand v. El Horado Irr. Dist., 97 Cal.App. 740 [ 276 P. 137 ] ; San Joaquin Agr. Corp. v. Board of Supervisors, 121 Cal.App. 468 [ 8 P.2d 1051 ].)

United Bank & Trust Co. v. Hunt

1 Cal. 2d 340 · California Supreme Court · Jul 21, 1934

Co. v. … (Goodman v. Dam, 112 Cal. App. 244 [ 296 Pac. 623 ]; People v. Bailey, 30 Cal. App. 581 [ 158 Pac. 1036 ]; Meredith v. Santa Clara Min. Assn., 56 Cal. 178 .)

Magee v. Pacific Improvement Co.

98 Cal. 678 · California Supreme Court · Jul 14, 1893

It was held in Fay v. … (Pinkerton v. Woodward, 33 Cal. 597 ; 91 Am. Dec. 657 ; Hancock v. Rand, 17 Hun. 279 ; 94 N. Y. 1 ; 46 Am. Eep. 112; Hall v. Pike, 169 Mass. 495 .)

People v. Morgan

67 Cal. Rptr. 3d 753 · California Supreme Court · Nov 15, 2007

(People v. Brown, supra, 11 Cal.3d at p. 789 (Brown).) In 1980, in Green, supra, 27 Cal.3d at page 67 , we found a 90-foot movement insufficient as a matter of law for the reasons stated in Brown . … (People v. Brown (2004) 33 Cal.4th 382, 401 [ 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 624 , 93 P.3d 244 ].) Except for factor (b), no burden of proof is constitutionally required at the penalty phase. (People v.

In re Estate of Shillaber

74 Cal. 144 · California Supreme Court · Nov 12, 1887

(Allen v. Maddox, 11 Moore P. C. 454.) We think that, under the evidence and the language of the will, the letter was properly excluded. … (George v. George, 47 N. H. 45; Brown v. Bendell, L. R. 21 Ch. Div. 667.) The property named in the third article is evidently but a small part of the estate.

People v. Lowden

2 Cal. Unrep. 537 · California Supreme Court · Sep 28, 1885

Proc., sec. 446), and in a verified answer general denials are inadmissible and may properly be stricken out: People v. Hagar, 52 Cal. 182 . The affirmative averments state conclusions of law and not facts. … Co. v. Board of Supervisors, 64 Cal. 69 , 28 Pac. 496 . It is clear, therefore, that the judgment-in that proceeding could not be a bar to this.

Reclamation Dist. No. 730 v. Hershey

169 Cal. 793 · California Supreme Court · Apr 5, 1915

It is said that the vital defect in the report is that it does not advise the board of trustees, or any other person, what particular work has been done for which this expense has been incurred, and Reclamation District v … Clark, 155 Cal. 345 , [ 100 Pac. 1091 ] ; Reclamation District v. Hershey, 160 Cal. 692 , [ 117 Pac. 904 ], and Reclamation District v.

Lancaster v. Municipal Court

6 Cal. 3d 805 · California Supreme Court · Mar 21, 1972

Conflicts exist if the ordinance duplicates (Chavez v. Sargent, 52 Cal. *808 2d 162, 176 [ 339 P.2d 801 ]; In re Portnoy, 21 Cal.2d 237, 240 [ 131 P.2d 1 ]; Pipoly v. … Rivera v.

Wilson v. Stockholders Pub. Co., Inc.

4 Cal. 2d 724 · California Supreme Court · Dec 23, 1935

In the first article, printed June 12', 1934, it was stated that the board of supervisors had purchased from the Sierra Equipment Company (the contract having been awarded to that company), of which plaintiff was president … (Haskins v. Jordan, 123 Cal. 157 [55 Pac. 786]; Leonard v. McPherson, 146 Cal. 616 [ 80 Pac. 1084 ].) The respondents place great reliance upon the case of Mortensen v. Los Angeles Examiner, 112 Cal.

Easton v. County of Alameda

9 Cal. 2d 301 · California Supreme Court · Jul 26, 1937

Kahn as his attorney-in-fact were filed with the board of supervisors of Alameda County. … Co. v. County of Alameda, 142 Cal. 660, 663 [ 76 Pac. 481, 483 ]) but does not allow a recovery by a property owner whose taxes have been paid by someone else under a contract to do so.

Mahoney v. Middleton

41 Cal. 41 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1871

(Hahn v. Kelly, 34 Cal. 391 .) … (Dutton v. Warschauer, 21 Cal. 609 ; Hawkins v. Reichart, 28 Cal. 534 ; Dimick v. Derringer, 32 Cal. 488 .) The judgment, therefore, as to him, is erroneous.

Poultry Producers of Southern California, Inc. v. Barlow

189 Cal. 278 · California Supreme Court · Jul 11, 1922

sell at such future time as the board of directors may direct, without making further accounting to seller therefor. . . . … (See Standard Fashion Co. v. Siegel-Cooper Co., supra; 36 Cyc. 587; Brown v. Western Maryland R. Co., 84 W. Va. 271 [4 A. L. R. 523, 99 S. E. 457 ].)