Case law

County of Trinity v. County of Mendocino

151 Cal. 279 · California Supreme Court · May 15, 1907

(Sutherland on Statutes [1st ed.], secs. 157, 158 ; People v. Quigg, 59 N. Y. 88 ; Anderson v. Hill, 42 N. J. L. 351 ; Vail v. Easton, 44 N. J. L. 239 ; State v. Mills, 34 N. J. L. 180 ; People v. Palmer, 52 N. … Y. 88 ; Crane v. Reeder, 22 Mich. 322 ; Robbins v. State, 8 Ohio St. 191 .)

In Re Marriage of Morrison

20 Cal. 3d 437 · California Supreme Court · Jan 16, 1978

(Becker v. Becker, 64 Cal.App.2d 239, 242 [ 148 P.2d 381 ].)” (Hall v. Hall, supra, 42 Cal.2d at p. 442 .) … Brown, Sr.) The Family Law Act does not use the term “alimony.”

Sevin v. State Bar

8 Cal. 3d 641 · California Supreme Court · Jan 5, 1973

The burden is upon one seeking a review of a recommendation of the disciplinary board to show that its findings are not supported by the evidence or that its recommendation is erroneous or unlawful. (Eschwig v. … (Alkow v. State Bar, 3 Cal.3d 924, 936 [ 92 Cal.Rptr. 278 , 479 P.2d 638 ].)

Stowell v. Rialto Irrigation Dist.

155 Cal. 215 · California Supreme Court · Feb 17, 1909

Similarly, in Stimson v. … (Township of Rock Creek v. Strong, 96 U. S. 271 ; Dows v. Town of Elmwood, 34 Fed. 114 ; City of South St. Paul v. Lamprecht Bros. Co., 88 Fed. 449 ; Yesler v. City of Seattle, 1 Wash.

Callahan v. Broderick

124 Cal. 80 · California Supreme Court · Mar 20, 1899

The necessity for a statement of the facts essential to a right *83 claimed is not obviated by averments, of legal conclusions (Aurrecoechea v. … (Ohm v. San Francisco, 92 Cal. 437 .) A conclusion of law tenders no issue, and a complaint which depends upon such allegations is insufficient and demurrable. (Branham v. Mayor, 24 Cal. 585 .)

Oettinger v. Stewart

24 Cal. 2d 133 · California Supreme Court · Apr 19, 1944

(Brown v. Pepperdine, 53 Cal.App. 334 [ 200 P. 36 ] ; cf. Tharp v. San Joaquin Cotton Oil Co., 27 Cal.App.2d 554 [ 81 P.2d 443 , 82 P.2d 21 ]; Brown v. … (Turnipseed v. Hoffman, 23 Cal.2d 532, 534-535 [ 144 P.2d 797 ] ; Demmon v. Smith, 58 Cal.App.2d 425, 432 [ 136 P.2d 660 ] ; Colgrove v. Lompoc etc. Club, 51 CaI.App.2d 18, 22, 23 [ 124 P.2d 128 ]; Yamauchi v.

In Re Antazo

3 Cal. 3d 100 · California Supreme Court · Sep 3, 1970

(McDonald v. Board of Election Comrs. (1969) 394 U.S. 802, 809 [ 22 L.Ed.2d 739, 745-746 , 89 S.Ct. 1404 ].) … Brown (1963) 372 U.S. 477, 483-485 [ 9 L.Ed.2d 892, 896-898 , 83 S.Ct. 768 ]; Draper v. Washington (1963) 372 U.S. 487, 499-500 [ 9 L.Ed.2d 899, 907-908 , 83 S.Ct. 774 ]; Long v.

W. R. Grace & Co. v. California Employment Commission

24 Cal. 2d 720 · California Supreme Court · Aug 18, 1944

Brockway, 30 Cal. 325, 337 ; United States Protective Ass’n v. Board of Police Commrs., 14 Cal.App. 249 [ 111 P. 755 ]; Gray v. … (Code Civ Proc., § 1109; Jones v. Board of Police Commrs., 141 Cal. 96 [ 74 P. 696 ]; Dillon v. Board of Pension Commrs., 18 Cal.2d 427 [ 116 P.2d 37 , 136 A.L.R. 800 ].)

In Re the Estate of Hayne

165 Cal. 568 · California Supreme Court · Jun 5, 1913

(Fellows v. Little, 46 N. H. 27; Brown v. Brown, 16 Vt. 197 ; Weatherhead v. Field, 26 Vt. 665 ; Bulkeley v. Noble, 19 Mass. 337 ; Clark v. Warner, 6 Conn. 355 ; Bayles v. Baker, 5 R. I. 460; Wilkinson v. … (Elliott v. Western C. M. Co., 243 Ill. 614 , [134 Am. St. Rep. *575 398, 17 Ann. Cas. 884, 90 N. E. 1104 ]; Sherwood v. Smith, 23 Conn. 521 ; Bradshear v. Cannady, 76 N. C. 448 ; Mitchell v.

In Re Dixon

41 Cal. 2d 756 · California Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1953

Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443 [ 73 S.Ct. 397, 420-422 , 97 L.Ed. 469 ].) … Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443 [ 73 S.Ct. 397, 421-422 , 97 L.Ed. 469 ].)

Kellerman v. Maier

116 Cal. 416 · California Supreme Court · Apr 6, 1897

(Spaulding v. Bradley, 79 Cal. 449 .) … (Christensen v. Eno, 106 N. Y. 97 ; 60 Am. Rep. 429 ; Arkansas River etc. Co. v. Farmers’ Loan etc. Co., 13 Colo. 587 .)

City of LA v. Super. Ct.

California Supreme Court · Jun 20, 2013

DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY The Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (Gov. … County of Orange (2011) 52 Cal.4th 1171, 1182-1183; Voters for Responsible Retirement v. Board of Supervisors (1994) 8 Cal.4th 765, 781.)

People v. Strassman

112 Cal. 683 · California Supreme Court · May 22, 1896

Coon, 45 Cal. 672 ; People v. Cox, 40 Cal. 275 ; Moore v. State, 12 Ohio St. 387 ; State v. Crogan, 8 Iowa, 523 ; Chute v. … State, 19 Minn. 271 ; while bearing specifically upon the question of perjury are those of State v. Bailey, 31 N. H. 521; State v. Tappan, 21 N. H. 56; Brown v. State, 47 Ala. 47 ; Commonwealth v.

People v. Cruz

61 Cal. 2d 861 · California Supreme Court · Oct 29, 1964

(Holzhey v. United States (5th Cir. 1955) 223 F.2d 823 , 825 - 827 [2]; United States v. Blok (D.C. Cir. 1951) 188 F.2d 1019, 1020 [2] - 1021 [7]; see also Tompkins v. … (People v. Parham (1963) 60 Cal.2d 378, 385-386 [6] [ 33 Cal.Rptr. 497 , 384 P.2d 1001 ]; People v.

California Teachers Assn. v. Riles

29 Cal. 3d 794 · California Supreme Court · Aug 27, 1981

The first case after Everson dealing with the constitutionality of providing textbooks for use in religious schools was Board of Education v. Allen (1968) 392 U.S. 236 [ 20 L.Ed.2d 1060 , 88 S.Ct. 1923 ]. … (Board of Education v. Allen, supra, 392 U.S. 236, at pp. 244, 248 [ 20 L.Ed.2d 1060, at pp. 1066, 1068 ]; Meek v. Pittenger, supra, 421 U.S. 349, 359-362 [ 44 L.Ed.2d 217, 228-230 ]; Wolman v.

People v. Streeter

54 Cal. 4th 205 · California Supreme Court · Jun 7, 2012

In Brown, we held that an instruction using this language could confuse and mislead the jury regarding the manner in which penalty should be determined. (Brown, supra, 40 Cal.3d at p. 544, fn. 17.) … In People v. Brasure, supra, 42 Cal.4th 1037 (a post-Brown case), the trial court substituted its own instruction for CALJIC No. 8.88.

People v. Hazelton

14 Cal. 4th 101 · California Supreme Court · Dec 5, 1996

(Board of Supervisors v. Lonergan (1980) 27 Cal.3d 855, 868 [ 167 Cal.Rptr. 820 , 616 P.2d 802 ].) … (Rossi v. Brown (1995) 9 Cal.4th 688, 700, fn. 7 [ 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 363 , 889 P.2d 557 ].)

Harris v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County

1 Cal. 5th 984 · California Supreme Court · Nov 10, 2016

Citing Doe v. … Brown, Public Defender, Albert J. Menaster, Rourke Stacy and Mark Harvis, Deputy Public Defenders, for Petitioner.

Union Oil Co. v. Union Sugar Co.

31 Cal. 2d 300 · California Supreme Court · Jan 16, 1948

Proc., §§ 1856, I860; Universal Sales Corp. v. California etc. Mfg. Co., 20 Cal.2d 751, 761 [ 128 P.2d 665 ]; Wachs v. Wachs, 11 Cal.2d 322, 326 [ 79 P.2d 1085 ]; Balfour v. … This plan was rejected by defendant’s board of directors.

County of Los Angeles v. Lopez

104 Cal. 257 · California Supreme Court · Sep 29, 1894

.- The judgment appealed from in this case is affirmed on the authority of the case of Eldorado County v. … Meiss, 100 Cal. 268 , in which it was held that the board of supervisors had no authority to create the office of license tax collector, and in which the case of the People v.