Case law

People v. Superior Court

123 Cal. Rptr. 2d 31 · California Supreme Court · Aug 1, 2002

In Solberg v. … In Schlick v.

Salfield v. Sutter County Land Improvement & Reclamation Co.

94 Cal. 546 · California Supreme Court · May 23, 1892

The defendant, being a corporation, could only act in this matter through its board of directors, when duly assembled, by resolution duly passed and recorded. (Civ. Code, secs. 305, 308, 377; Gashwiler v. … But in Forrester v.

People v. Noguera

4 Cal. 4th 599 · California Supreme Court · Dec 28, 1992

(People v. Benson, supra, at p. 793 .) B. Claim of error in penalty determination instructions (Brown error). … (People v. Brown, supra, 40 Cal.3d at p. 540 , fn. omitted.) The penalty determination instruction given the jury in this case was not the instruction challenged in People v. Brown, supra, 40 Cal.3d 512 .

In Re Gritton

46 Cal. 2d 856 · California Supreme Court · Jul 31, 1956

(See Wheeler v. Plumas County, 149 Cal. 782 [87 P. 802]; Ex parte Pfirrmann, 134 Cal. 143 [ 66 P. 205 ]; Hill v. … Code, § 16100; County of Plumas v. Wheeler, 149 Cal. 758 [ 87 P. 909 ].)

People v. Hanson

23 Cal. 4th 355 · California Supreme Court · Jun 19, 2000

Opinion BROWN, J. —When a defendant successfully appeals a criminal conviction, California’s constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy precludes the imposition of more severe punishment on resentencing. … (Monge, supra, 16 Cal.4th at p. 844 , citing Henderson, supra, 60 Cal.2d at pp. 495-497; see People v. Hernandez, supra, 19 Cal.4th 835, 850 (dis. opn. of Brown, J.)

San Diego, Old Town, & Pacific Beach R. R. v. Pacific Beach Co.

112 Cal. 53 · California Supreme Court · Mar 24, 1896

In Coe v. East etc. Ry. Co., 52 Fed. … (See, also, Booth v. Robinson, 55 Md. 419 ; Kitchen v. St. Louis etc. R. R. Co., 69 Mo. 224 .)

People v. Villatoro

54 Cal. 4th 1152 · California Supreme Court · Jul 30, 2012

(See Isobe v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Board (1974) 12 Cal.3d 584, 590-591 [ 116 Cal.Rptr. 376 , 526 P.2d 528 ].) … (See Isobe v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Board, supra, 12 Cal.3d at pp. 590-591.)

People v. Robertson

17 Cal. Rptr. 3d 604 · California Supreme Court · Aug 19, 2004

Reluctantly, I conclude the merger doctrine (People v. … it may be ripe for reexamination, as Justice Panelli (People v.

Dyer v. Heydenfeldt

2 Cal. Unrep. 409 · California Supreme Court · Nov 29, 1884

The court found that before the board of supervisors gave notice of their intention to order that Broadway, from the west line of Buchanan street to the west line of Webster street, be graded, “two blocks upon each side of … In Clark v. Porter, 53 Cal. 409 , there was an objection to the dismissal of the action as to any of the defendants.

People ex rel. Waterman v. Freeman

80 Cal. 233 · California Supreme Court · Aug 30, 1889

In the case of Taylor v. Commonwealth, 3 J. J. … (People v. Langdon, 8 Cal. 16 .)

Ferran v. Southern Pacific Co.

3 Cal. 2d 350 · California Supreme Court · Apr 24, 1935

Looking south he saw the train he intended to board rounding a curve about half a mile away. He then walked to the macadamized space in front of the station and signaled the approaching train. … We are not persuaded that the appropriate rule is relaxed in the defendant’s favor because Lomita Park was a flag stop for the northbound train which the plaintiff desired to board.

Pinnacle Museum Tower Ass'n v. Pinnacle Market Development (US), LLC

55 Cal. 4th 223 · California Supreme Court · Aug 16, 2012

(Craig v. Brown & Root, Inc. (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 416, 420 [ 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 818 ]; see Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 951, 972-973 [ 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 843 , 938 P.2d 903 ].) … (See Marmet Health Care Center v. Brown (2012) 565 U.S. _ , _ [ 182 L.Ed.2d 42 , 132 S.Ct. 1201, 1204 ].) We hereby disapprove Villa Milano Homeowners Assn. v.

Gay Law Students Ass'n v. Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co.

24 Cal. 3d 458 · California Supreme Court · May 31, 1979

Cir. 1969) 417 F.2d 1161 ; Society for Individual Rights, Inc. v. Hampton (N.D. Cal. 1973) 63 F.R.D. 399 ; Saal v. Middendorf (N.D. Cal. 1977) 427 F.Supp. 192, 199-203 ; Martinez v. Brown (N.D. … (See, e.g., Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Labor Board (1941) 313 U.S. 177, 191-192 [ 85 L.Ed. 1271, 1281-1282 . 61 S.Ct. 845 , 133 A.L.R. 1217 ]: and N.L.R.B. v.

Alward v. Johnson

208 Cal. 359 · California Supreme Court · Oct 7, 1929

On the basis of that statement, and pursuant to the Constitution, supra, the board levied a tax of $2,978.78 for the year 1927. … Co. v. Peniston, 18 Wall. ( 85 U. S. 5 ) 33 [ 21 L. Ed. 787 , see, also, Rose’s U. S.

Athearn v. Nicol

187 Cal. 86 · California Supreme Court · Sep 16, 1921

The statute under consideration provides that after the levy of the assessment by the assessor and the approval thereof by the reclamation board a proceeding shall be instituted by the reclamation board in the "Superior Court … This provision has been held constitutional (Sacramento & Joaquin Drainage Dist. v. Rector, 172 Cal. 385 , [ 156 Pac. 506 ]).

Cedars of Lebanon Hospital v. County of Los Angeles

35 Cal. 2d 729 · California Supreme Court · Aug 18, 1950

Francis v. Board of Review, 231 Ill. 317 [ 83 N.E. 272, 274 ]; Board of Review of Cook County v. Provident Hospital & Training School Ass’n., 233 Ill. 242 [ 84 N.E. 216, 217-218 ].) … (Board of Supervisors v. Vicksburg Hospital, 173 Miss. 805 [ 163 So. 382, 384 ]; Board of Sup’rs. v. Jackson Hospital Benev. Ass’n., 180 Miss. 129 [ 177 So. 27, 28 ]; Rush Hospital Benev. Ass’n. v.

People v. Amador

100 Cal. Rptr. 2d 617 · California Supreme Court · Oct 16, 2000

It is brown with beige trim. The house is located on the west side of the street, south of Sundance.” … J., Kennard, J., Baxter, J., Werdegar, J., and Brown, J., concurred.

Kinlaw v. State of California

54 Cal. 3d 326 · California Supreme Court · Aug 30, 1991

As in Common Cause v. Board of Supervisors (1989) 49 Cal.3d 432, 439 [ 261 Cal. … An example is the Brown-Presley Trial Court Funding Act (Gov.

Wickersham v. Crittenden

106 Cal. 329 · California Supreme Court · Mar 9, 1895

In this case, as in Wickersham v. Crittenden, No. 19349, this day decided, ante, p. 327, there was a mass of irrelevant evidence introduced by respondent. … On the contrary, in the ninth specification it is stated that “ said board did fix and pay the compensation of Graves & Graves for their said services, and that said action of the board of directors was subsequently ratified

Hill v. City of Manhattan Beach

6 Cal. 3d 279 · California Supreme Court · Dec 13, 1971

(Vetter v. Zoning Board of Appeal of Attleboro (1953) 330 Mass. 628 [ 116 N.E.2d 277 ]; see also Galpin v. Village of River Forest (1962) 26 Ill.2d 515 [ 187 N.E.2d 233 ]; Korby v. … Proc., § 1094.5; Hostetter v. Alderson, supra, 38 Cal.2d 499, 500 ; Boren v. State Personnel Board (1951) 37 Cal.2d 634, 638 [ 234 P.2d 981 ].)