Case law

Klarfeld v. Berg

29 Cal. 3d 893 · California Supreme Court · Sep 10, 1981

Com. v. Town of Emeryville (1968) 69 Cal.2d 533, 543 [ 72 Cal.Rptr. 790 , 446 P.2d 790 ]; Select Base Materials v. Board of Equal. (1959) 51 Cal.2d 640, 645 [ 335 P.2d 672 ].) … (Isobe v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (1974) 12 Cal.3d 584, 590 [ 116 Cal.Rptr. 376 , 526 P.2d 528 ]; County of Placer v. Aetna Cas. etc. Co. (1958) 50 Cal.2d 182, 188-189 [ 323 P.2d 753 ].)

People v. Morales

104 Cal. Rptr. 2d 582 · California Supreme Court · Mar 5, 2001

Both Justice Mosk’s majority opinion and Justice Brown’s dissenting opinion conclude that evidence of a defendant’s ingesting an illegal drug is, standing alone, insufficient to support a conviction for possessing that drug … The dissent also states that Griffin v. United States (1991) 502 U.S. 46, 52-54, 58-59 [ 112 S.Ct. 466, 470-472, 473-474 , 116 L.Ed.2d 371 ], People v.

Otis v. Haseltine

27 Cal. 80 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1864

In Jones v. … (Church v. Brown, 21 N. Y. 315 .) Judgment affirmed.

Forbes v. Reilly

57 Cal. 302 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1881

.: The decree in the action, Alexander Forbes v. George Turner, James Reilly, Thomas H. Selby, Mayor, etc., and the City and County of San Francisco, must be read in connection with the pleadings. … In Forbes v. Turner et al., it was decreed that the mayor should convey the city title directly to Forbes.

Stevenson v. County of San Diego

26 Cal. 2d 842 · California Supreme Court · Aug 31, 1945

(Moore v. Wood, ante, pp. 621, 629 [ 160 P.2d 772 ].) … Co. v. Horton & Converse, 21 Cal.2d 411, 430 [ 132 P.2d 457 ]; Eastman Oil etc. Corp. v. Lane-Wells Co., 21 Cal.2d 872, 875 [ 136 P.2d 564 ].)

People ex rel. Attorney-General v. Parvin

74 Cal. 549 · California Supreme Court · Jan 25, 1888

On the twenty-second day of July, 1880, the board of supervisors of Sacramento County, wherein the territory included in Reclamation District No. 3 is situated, by order set apart a portion of such territory as and for a … (Reclamation District No. 3 v. Kennedy, 58 Cal. 124 .) Why should section 3481 of the same code be held to apply to and authorize a division of Eeclamation District No. 3?

Rogers v. State Bar

28 Cal. 3d 654 · California Supreme Court · Dec 29, 1980

The disciplinary board found that petitioner wilfully commingled and converted this $150 to his own use and benefit. 2. THE W. … (Bradpiece v. State Bar (1974) 10 Cal.3d 742, 746-747 [ 111 Cal.Rptr. 905 , 518 P.2d 337 ]; see Cain v. State Bar (1979) 25 Cal.3d 956, 961 [ 160 Cal.Rptr. 362 , 603 P.2d 464 ], and the cases cited therein.)

Pacific Postal Telegraph Cable Co. v. Dalton

119 Cal. 604 · California Supreme Court · Jan 17, 1898

(Merrill v. Humphrey, 24 Mich. 170 ; Lefferts v. Board of Supervisors, 21 Wis. 688 ; Milwaukee Iron Co. v. Hubbard, 29 Wis. 51 .)” … In Lefferts v. Board of Supervisors, supra, where the supreme court of Wisconsin held that the lower court erred in sustaining a demurrer to the complaint, the averments were substantially like those in the case at bar.

Willis v. Santa Ana Community Hospital Ass'n

58 Cal. 2d 806 · California Supreme Court · Dec 4, 1962

(Guillory v. Godfrey, 134 Cal.App.2d 628, 632 [ 286 P.2d 474 ] ; Masoni v. Board of Trade of S. F., 119 Cal.App.2d 738, 741 [ 260 P.2d 205 ] ; see Rest., Torts, § 766, cl. (b); cf. Lipman v. Brisbane Elementary Sch. … (Freed v. Manchester Service, Inc., 165 Cal.App.2d 186, 190-191 [ 331 P.2d 689 ] ; Masoni v. Board of Trade of S. F., supra, 119 Cal.App.2d 738, 742 ; see Rest., Torts, § 767.)

Eggert v. Pacific States Savings & Loan Co.

20 Cal. 2d 199 · California Supreme Court · Apr 21, 1942

(Elliott v. Superior Court, 144 Cal. 501 [ 77 Pac. 1109 , 103 Am. St. Rep. 102 ]; Braun v. … Brown, 13 Cal. (2d) 130 [ 87 P. (2d) 1009 ]; (Estate of McDermott, 127 Cal. 450 [ 59 Pac. 783 ]; Estate of Crooks, 125 Cal. 459 [ 58 Pac. 89 ]; Altpeter v. Postal Telegraph-Cable Co., 22 Cal.

Lutheran Hospital Society v. County of Los Angeles

25 Cal. 2d 254 · California Supreme Court · Nov 21, 1944

(See Ross v. City of Long Beach, 24 Cal.App. 2d 258, 262 [ 148 P.2d 649 ].) In Pasadena University v. … In Massachusetts General Hospital v.

People v. Famalaro

52 Cal. 4th 1 · California Supreme Court · Jul 7, 2011

She removed the board so the lab could conduct further testing on it. e. … (People v. Hamilton (2009) 45 Cal.4th 863, 925-926; People v. Lewis and Oliver (2006) 39 Cal.4th 970, 1066; People v. Brown (2004) 33 Cal.4th 382, 395-396; see also People v. Edwards (1991) 54 Cal.3d 787, 835.)

People v. Standard Oil Co.

218 Cal. 123 · California Supreme Court · May 1, 1933

of equalization in such detail as that board may require.” … (United States v. Watkins, 22 Fed. (2d) 437; People v. Mouse, 203 Cal. 782 [ 265 Pac. 944 ].)

Garretson Investment Co. v. Arndt

144 Cal. 64 · California Supreme Court · Jul 6, 1904

(Baker v. Varney, 129 Cal. 564 ; 1 Scott v. Hotchkiss, 115 Cal. 94 .) … Proc., sec. 580; Brooks v. Forington, 117 Cal. 219 ; Foley v. Foley, 120 Cal. 42, 43 ; 1 Staacke v. Bell, 125 Cal. 312 et seq.)

Grisham v. Philip Morris U.S.A., Inc.

54 Cal. Rptr. 3d 735 · California Supreme Court · Feb 15, 2007

(See Bernson v. Browning-Ferris Industries (1994) 7 Cal.4th 926, 931 [ 30 Cal.Rptr.2d 440 , 873 P.2d 613 ]; Brown v. Bleiberg (1982) 32 Cal.3d 426, 433-36 [ 186 Cal.Rptr. 228 , 651 P.2d 815 ].) … (Soliman, supra, 311 F.3d at p. 973 ; see also Spain v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.

Hontz v. San Pedro Etc. R. R. Co.

173 Cal. 750 · California Supreme Court · Dec 4, 1916

he was in the exercise of such care, having boarded it at a lesser distance from a known danger, was a matter of fact for the jury. … (Kenna v. Central Pac. R. R. Co., 101 Cal. 26 , [ 35 Pac. 332 ] ; Douglass v. Southern Pac. Co., 151 Cal. 242 , [ 90 Pac. 538 ] ; Richmond etc. Co. v. Bivens, 103 Ala. 142 , [ 15 South. 515 ].)

Lyle v. Rollins

25 Cal. 437 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1864

(Rico v. Spence, 21 Cal. 511 .) In Van *438 Winkle v. … He occupied it when this suit was commenced. ■* * * The house was ten by twenty-eight, boarded up and clapboarded over. * * * The fence of 1861 was of two boards.

Roman Catholic Archbishop v. Industrial Accident Commission

194 Cal. 660 · California Supreme Court · Oct 22, 1924

if he was ready to fix the ridge board and the cross if the pastor had not come; that when Ed. … (Bargewell v. Daniel, 98 L. T. R. 257; Kelly v. Buchanan, 13 Compensation L. R. 729, 47 Ir. L. T.; McCann v. McDonnell, note to Kelly v. Buchanan, supra; State ex rel. Lennon v.

Pleasants v. North Beach & Mission Railroad

34 Cal. 586 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1868

. : The facts of this case are that the female plaintiff, (who is a woman of color,) being desirous to take passage on one of the street cars of defendant, hailed the Conductor and requested him to take her on board; that … In Turner v. North Beach and Mission Bailroad Company, decided at the present term, we have passed upon the chief points involved in this appeal. The damages were excessive.

Horr v. Barker

8 Cal. 609 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1857

And he refers to the case of Wilker & Fontaine v. Ferris, 5 John. R., 335. … J., in delivering the opinion of the Court, in the case of Brown v.