Case law

Miller v. Superior Court

89 Cal. Rptr. 2d 834 · California Supreme Court · Nov 1, 1999

BROWN, J. … V, § 14, subd. (d), art. X B, § 15, art. XIIID, § 1, art. XVI, §§ 5, 6, 16, subd. (c)), I decline to adopt it. Werdegar, J., concurred.

Easton v. Cressey

100 Cal. 75 · California Supreme Court · Oct 13, 1893

The provision in the contract for liquidated damages was void under sections 1670 and 1671 of the Civil Code (Drew v. Pedlar, 87 Cal. 443 ; 22 Am. St. … (Phelps v. Brown, 95 Cal. 572 ; Drew v. Pedlar, 87 Cal. 443 ; 22 Am. St. Rep. 257 .)

Reclamation District No. 1619 v. Dodge

10 Cal. 743 · California Supreme Court · Feb 24, 1938

It then alleges that said board of trustees made and rendered their report to the board of supervisors for an original plan of reclamation work together with an estimate of the cost thereof; that thereafter three disinterested … (Silva v. Reclamation Dist., 41 Cal. App. 326, 331 [ 182 Pac. 786 ], hearing denied in this court.) Let a peremptory writ issue as prayed. Shenk, J., Houser, J., Curtis, J., Edmonds, J., and Langdon, J., concurred.

People v. Babbitt

45 Cal. 3d 660 · California Supreme Court · Jun 16, 1988

(People v. Brown (1985) 40 Cal.3d 512, 541 [ 93 L.Ed.2d 934 , 107 S.Ct. 837 ], revd. on other grounds, California v. Brown (1987) 479 U.S. 538 [ 93 L.Ed.2d 934 , 107 S.Ct. 837 ], see People v. … We stated that whether the jury in a pre-Brown case has been misled so as to prejudice the defendant depends on a case-by-case analysis. (People v. Brown, supra, at p. 544, fn. 17.)

Knights Landing Ridge Drainage District v. Reclamation District No. 730

1 Cal. 2d 350 · California Supreme Court · Jul 24, 1934

Co. v. Sacramento & San Joaquin Drainage District, 72 Cal. App. 68, 74 [ 237 Pac. 59 ]. … (Reclamation District No. 551 v. County of Sacramento, 134 Cal. 477, 479 [ 66 Pac. 668 ]; see, also, People v. Richards, 86 Cal. App. 86, 92 [ 260 Pac. 582 ].)

County of Alpine v. County of Tuolumne

49 Cal. 2d 787 · California Supreme Court · Mar 7, 1958

Board of Civil Service Com., 26 Cal.2d 716, 723-725 [ 160 P.2d 816 ]; Carroll v. California Horse Racing Board, 16 Cal.2d 164, 168 [ 105 P.2d 110 ]; cf., Keeler v. … California State Board of Optometry, 19 Cal.2d 831 [ 123 P.2d 457 ]; Dare v. Board of Medical Examiners, 21 Cal.2d 790 [ 136 P.2d 304 ]; Sipper v. Urban, 22 Cal.2d 138 [ 137 P.2d 425 ]; Moran v.

Riggin v. Dockweiler

15 Cal. 2d 651 · California Supreme Court · Jul 16, 1940

The same legislation upheld in Housing Authority of the County of Los Angeles v. Dockweiler, 14 Cal. (2d) 437 [ 94 Pac. (2d) 794 ], is challenged in this proceeding. … The legislation was enacted to provide for low-cost housing incidental to slum clearance, but with no requirement that the new structures be confined to slum areas. *654 (Chapman v. Huntington, W.

Knoll v. Davidson

12 Cal. 3d 335 · California Supreme Court · Aug 15, 1974

(See Donovan v. Brown, 11 Cal.3d 571, 573 [ 115 Cal. Rptr. 41 , 524 P.2d 137 ].) Yet analysis of the leading cases by the United States Supreme Court makes it clear that California's system was only partially invalid. … Brown (1974) 11 Cal.3d 571 [ 115 Cal. Rptr. 41 , 524 P.2d 137 ].

Fagundes v. Central Pacific Railroad

3 L.R.A. 824 · California Supreme Court · Apr 30, 1889

Code, sec. 1970; Stephens v. Doe, 73 Cal. 28 ; McLean v. Blue Point Gravel Mining Company, 51 Cal. 257 ; Fisk v. C. P. R. R. Co., 72 Cal. 42 ; Brown v. C. P. R. R. Co., 72 Cal. 523 .) … (Vanderford v. Foster, 65 Cal. 49 .) In cases where the facts are undisputed, the question of negligence is a question of law to be passed on by the court. (Glascock v. C. P. R. R. Co., 73 Cal. 137 , and cases cited.)

Christopher v. State Bar

26 Cal. 2d 663 · California Supreme Court · Jun 29, 1945

The proceeding *666 was certified to the Board of Governors for dismissal. … Jacobs v. State Bar, 219 Cal. 59 [ 25 P.2d 401 ].)

Boys' & Girls' Aid Society v. Reis

71 Cal. 627 · California Supreme Court · Jan 31, 1887

Carpentier, 13 Cal. 546 ; Argenti v. … (Boone on Corporations, sec. 310; Richardson v. Heydenfeldt, 46 Cal. 68 ; City of Stockton v. Creanor, 45 Cal. 646 .)

Bank of California v. City & County of San Francisco

142 Cal. 276 · California Supreme Court · Feb 18, 1904

This case involved the question as to the validity of the action of the board of supervisors of San Francisco, sitting as a board of equalization, raising the assessment of the franchise of the plaintiff from five thousand … Bank v.

Sodikoff v. State Bar

14 Cal. 3d 422 · California Supreme Court · May 28, 1975

In these proceedings, of course, petitioner has the burden of showing that the findings of the board are unsupported by substantial evidence. (Caldwell v. … (Rohe v. State Bar (1941) 17 Cal.2d 445, 450 [ 110 P.2d 389 ]; accord, Pickering v. State Bar (1944) 24 Cal.2d 141, 145 [ 148 P.2d 1 ].)

In Re Smith

143 Cal. 368 · California Supreme Court · May 31, 1904

In Lawton v. Steele, 152 U. … Chicago, 78 Ill. 405 ; Oxanna v. Allen, 90 Ala. 468 ; People v. Armstrong, 73 Mich. 288 ; 1 Ex parte Patterson, 42 Tex. Crim. Rep. 256; Cleveland etc. Railway Co. v. Connersville, 147 Ind. 277 ; 2 Pieri v.

Intel Corp. v. Hamidi

1 Cal. Rptr. 3d 32 · California Supreme Court · Jun 30, 2003

Attempting to find an actionable trespass, Justice Brown analyzes Intel’s e-mail system as comparable to the exterior of an automobile (dis. opn. of Brown, J., post, at p. 1367), a plot of land (id. at p. 1377), the interior … Justice Brown would distinguish Madsen v.

Malloy v. Fong

37 Cal. 2d 356 · California Supreme Court · Jun 1, 1951

The other children remained in Fong’s station wagon, plaintiff standing on the left running board and another boy standing on the right running board. … Antisdale testified that he ordered the children off the running boards.

Perry v. Bakewell Hawthorne, LLC

213 Cal. Rptr. 3d 764 · California Supreme Court · Feb 23, 2017

(Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 848 (Aguilar); see Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial, supra, ¶ 10:278, pp. 10-127-128.) … Name of Opinion Perry v.

Estate of Weir

168 Cal. 330 · California Supreme Court · Sep 29, 1914

Did John Seiler furnish board and lodging to John Weir for the two years ending February 13, 1912 ? “A. Yes. “2. If your answer to the above question is ‘yes,’ then state what the value of said board and lodging was. … (Irrgang v. Ott, 9 Cal. App. 441 , [99 Pac. 528]; Obersteller v. Commercial Assurance Co., 96 Cal. 647 , [ 31 Pac. 587 ].)

In Re Rust

181 Cal. 73 · California Supreme Court · Aug 25, 1919

In Bessette v. … The case of People v.

Linggi v. Garovotti

45 Cal. 2d 20 · California Supreme Court · Jul 22, 1955

In Machado v. Board of Public Works of Arlington (1947), 321 Mass. 101 [ 71 N.E.2d 886 ], one DiMaggio owned property abutting on the Parkway and adjacent to the land owned by Machado. … Machado v. Board of Public Works of Arlington, supra, 71 N.E.2d 886 .)