Case law

People v. Avena

13 Cal. 4th 394 · California Supreme Court · Jun 10, 1996

(People v. Brown, supra, 46 Cal.3d at pp. 446-449; see People v. Wright, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 438 [applying the Brown “reasonable possibility” standard].) … Brown (1985) 40 Cal.3d 512 [ 220 Cal.Rptr. 637 , 709 P.2d 440 ] (hereafter Brown) revd. on another issue, California v. Brown, supra, 479 U.S. 538 ; CALJIC No. 8.84.1 (4th ed. 1979); § 190.3.)

Perine v. Forbush

97 Cal. 305 · California Supreme Court · Feb 15, 1893

And in the case of McBean v. Redick, 96 Cal. 191 , it was also held that the property owner is not required to appeal to the board of trustees or city council, when the assessment is based upon an invalid contract. … (Himmelman v. Hoadley, 44 Cal. 276 ; Boyle v. Hitchcock, 66 Cal. 129 ; Fanning v. Leviston, 93 Cal. 186 ; Frick v. Morford, 87 Cal. 579 .)

San Francisco & Fresno Land Co. v. Hartung

138 Cal. 223 · California Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1902

(LeRoy v. Cunningham, 44 Cal. 599 ; Dupond v. Barstow, 45 Cal. 446 ; McCreery v. Sawyer, 62 Cal. 257.) … (Campe v. Lassen, 67 Cal. 139 ; Weller v. Dickinson, 93 Cal. 110 ; Clark v. Nordholt, 121 Cal. 26 .) The ease of Judah v.

People v. Simon

45 Cal. 2d 645 · California Supreme Court · Nov 29, 1955

In People v. Brown, ante, p. 640 [ 290 P.2d 528 ], we held that a search incident to an arrest could not be justified in the absence of “reasonable cause” under. … Brown, ante, p. 640 [ 290 P.2d 528 ]), and it does not appear that the officer had reasonable cause to believe he had committed a felony.

In Re Honoroff

15 Cal. 3d 755 · California Supreme Court · Dec 22, 1975

Petitioner seeks review of a recommendation of the Disciplinary Board of the State Bar (board) that he be disbarred. He was admitted to practice in Illinois in 1943 and in this state in 1950. … (Alkow v. State Bar, 3 Cal.3d 924, 936 [ 92 Cal.Rptr. 278 , 479 P.2d 638 ].) The facts surrounding petitioner’s misconduct are set forth in detail in Honoroff v.

Rexstrew v. City of Huntington Park

20 Cal. 2d 630 · California Supreme Court · Jul 30, 1942

(Livingstone v. MacGillivray, 1 Cal. (2d) 546, 553 [ 36 P. (2d) 622 ]; Childress v. Peterson, 18 Cal. (2d) 636 [ 117 P. (2d) 336 ]; Winslow v. Bull, 97 Cal. App. 516, 523 [ 275 Pac. 974 ].) … (Wiles v. State Personnel Board, 19 Cal. (2d) 344 [ 121 P. (2d) 673 ]; State Board of Equalization v. Superior Court, ante, p. 467, 474 [ 127 P. (2d) 4 ].)

Beck v. Wecht

121 Cal. Rptr. 2d 384 · California Supreme Court · Jun 27, 2002

Opinion BROWN, J. … Pollack v. Lytle (1981) 120 Cal.App.3d 931 [ 175 Cal.Rptr. 81 ] (Pollack) recognized such a fiduciary duty, but Joseph A. Saunders, P.C. v.

In re Levi

39 Cal. 2d 41 · California Supreme Court · May 19, 1952

Brown, 102 Cal.App.2d 60, 62-63 [ 226 P.2d 609 ] [sentence after exercising reasonable diligence to procure missing defendant and finding that it is in interest of justice to pronounce judgment in his absence] ; People v. … (People v. Brown, supra; People v. Fields, 88 Cal.App.2d 30, 33 [ 198 P.2d 104 ] ; In re Klein, 75 Cal.App.2d 600, 603 [ 171 P.2d 471 ]; People v. Hawthorne, 63 Cal.App.2d 262, 264 [ 146 P.2d 517 ]; see People v.

People v. Williams

14 Cal. Rptr. 3d 211 · California Supreme Court · Jun 9, 2004

14 Cal.Rptr.3d 211 (2004) 91 P.3d 163 PEOPLE v. WILLIAMS. No. S123910. Supreme Court of California. June 9, 2004. Review granted/briefing deferred (rule 29.1). … GEORGE, C.J., and KENNARD, BAXTER, WERDEGAR, CHIN, BROWN and MORENO, JJ., concur.

People v. Central Pacific Railroad

83 Cal. 393 · California Supreme Court · Mar 8, 1890

Board of Education, 55 Cal. 489 . In Miller v. … (San Francisco v. S. V. W. W., 48 Cal. 493 .) The same doctrine has since been laid down and adhered to in Waterloo Turnpike Road Co. v. Cole, 51 Cal. 381 ; Spring V. W. W. v.

Conant v. Conant

10 Cal. 249 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1858

In Heyde v. … (Codd v. Codd, 2 John. Ch., 224; Wood v. Wood, 2 Paige, 113 ; Wright’s Ohio, 98; Richards v. Richards, Ib., 302; Stokes v. Stokes, 1 Mo., 322 ; Wright v. Wright, 3 Texas, 168 .)

Carter v. Stevens

211 Cal. 281 · California Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1930

delegation of authority (New York v. … Co. v. Board of Agriculture of North Carolina, 222 U. S. 380 [ 56 L. Ed. 240 , 32 Sup. Ct.

Loveland v. Garner

74 Cal. 298 · California Supreme Court · Dec 9, 1887

(Felch v. Beaudry, 40 Cal. 439 ; Hemme v. Hays, 55 Cal. 339 ; Gay v. Winter, 34 Cal. 153 ; Fitzgibbon v. Calvert, 39 Cal. 261 .) … (Curtis v. Richards, 9 Cal. 38 .) And in such a case, the defendant should, at least, show “ how it happened that he was without knowledge as to such ‘facts.” (Brown v. Scott, 25 Cal. 190 .)

De Moulin v. Magnesite Refractories Co.

186 Cal. 128 · California Supreme Court · Jun 10, 1921

(Curtin v. Salmon River etc. Co., 130 Cal. 345 , [ 80 Am. St. Rep. 132 , 62 Pac. 552 ].) … R. 444, 190 Pac. 793 ], that the rehearing was granted. [4] Under that decision and Goldman v.

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 ].

County of Marin v. Superior Court

53 Cal. 2d 633 · California Supreme Court · Feb 16, 1960

No power is given ... to the board of prison directors to abolish public highways.” (People v. County of Marin, supra, 103 Cal. 223, 226-227 .) … Superior Court, 171 Cal. 672, 679-680 [ 154 P. 845 ]; Board of Education v. Martin, 92 Cal. 209, 215-216 [ 28 P. 799 ] ; Dillwood v. Riecks, 42 Cal.App. 602, 607-608 [ 184 P. 35 ]; United States v.

Endler v. Schutzbank

68 Cal. 2d 162 · California Supreme Court · Jan 26, 1968

Board of etc. Education (1956) 350 U.S. 551 [ 100 L.Ed. 692 , 76 S.Ct. 637 ] ; Wieman v. Undegraff (1952) 344 U.S. 183 [ 97 L.Ed. 216 , 73 S.Ct. 215 ] • BUmenthal v. … Board of Medical Examiners (1967) 66 Cal.2d 381 [ 58 Cal.Rptr. 7 , 426 P.2d 167 ]; Doyle v. Board of Barter Examiners (1963) 219 Cal.App.2d 504 [33 Cal.Rptr. 349] ; Presto v. Alcoholic Beverage Control etc.

Monahan v. San Diego County

3 Cal. Unrep. 487 · California Supreme Court · Mar 28, 1892

The plaintiff, as a constable, charged the defendant fees for services in criminal cases, amounting to $578.75, and presented to the board of supervisors his verified, itemized bill for this amount. … The questions presented were decided adversely to appellant’s contention in Allen v. Napa County, 82 Cal. 187 , 23 Pac. 43 , following Cunningham v. San Joaquin County, 49 Cal. 323 .

Grosset v. Wenaas

72 Cal. Rptr. 3d 129 · California Supreme Court · Feb 14, 2008

The authority to manage the business and affairs of a corporation is vested in its board of directors, not in its shareholders. (§ 300, subd. (a); Granite Gold Min. Co. v. … The fundamental purpose of a derivative action is to provide a means by which a stockholder may seek to enforce the rights of a corporation when the corporate board refuses to do so. (Jones v. H. F.

Kent v. Snyder

30 Cal. 666 · California Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1866

But before doing so we are called upon to dispose of an objection suggested on the part of the appellants to the general nature of the demurrer, to support which the case of Brown v. … Macy, 7 Cal. 206 ; Semple v. Hagar, 27 Cal. 166 .)